lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 24, 2005 10:15:19 GMT -4
It would be relevant to the firefighters, because they would need to be informed by the commander to stay clear of the building; that it was going to collapse (they don't need to be told specifically why it was going to collapse, or why the commander would know this was going to happen.Ah, of course. The building can't collapse on its own (which is what the PCTs all say), so we won't arouse any suspicion by telling them to get out before it collapses. Nobody will think, "Hey! That building shouldn't have collapsed! And how did that guy know when it would happen!" Also touching is the sudden concern for the firefighters by people who were so blithely willing to slaughter their brothers en masse in WTC 1 and 2. This argument, in other words, not only lacks any evidence to support it, and is based on the most contorted and farfetched possible interpretation of somebody's words, but it isn't even consistent with the other claims. In that sense, it's perfect from a PCT point of view. Maybe we should call them GCTs - Gullible Conspiracy Theorists. They'll believe anything as long as it fits with their preconceived notions. The funny thing about them is that they have this superiority complex about themselves. They're not gullible sheep like everyone else out there, nope can't fool them. Even the engineer who designed the WTC towers bought the "official" explanation "hook, line and sinker" what a sap! But us with our total of zero civil engineering and architecture degrees we can see through all the ridiculous lies of the NWO! It was controlled demo, it's so obvious for anyone with the requisite lack of expert knowledge to see!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 24, 2005 10:22:03 GMT -4
The firefighter was walking the 9th floor - not fighting any fires.
Exactly. You made the jump from "no attempt to fight the fires," to "no firefighters in the building."
In fact, no mention is made of any fires being reported by this firefighter...
Irrelevant; there was other evidence of fire that this firefighter didn't need to witness personally. Do you dispute that WTC 7 was on fire?
The point is that, despite the single sentence in the FEMA report, there was a firefighter presence in the building at some time. It is reasonable on that basis to suspect that there may have been others at other times. This substantiates that the fire chief may have informed Silverstein that he had people in the building, as was claimed.
He surely wpuld have reported if any fires were occurring, as well as the damage he observed.
Irrelevant. The point was that there were firemen in the building. The FEMA report is now contradictory as you've interpreted it. Would you care to reinterpret?
2. Please provide links if possible to these visual records. However, many firefighters could certainly be in the vicinity of WTC 7 - the entire area had emergency personnel running around in every direction amidst the chaos after the towers collapsing. This does not mean that the firefighters were engaging in an effort towards fighting the WTC 7 fires.
I didn't say they were. But if Silverstein says the fire chief told him he had a contingent of firefighters in the building, then evidence of that would be important.
It can safely be stated that Silverstein's spokesman is not close to being an independent, impartial source.
Duh. That's how he's able to speak authoritatively for Silverstein!
We both agreed that second-guessing Silverstein and what he meant was not profitable. Silverstein has now clarified his comments, and they dispute your interpretation of what he said. Why would you want an "independent" account of what Silverstein's intent had been? Only Silverstein is authorized to tell people what he intended by that comment.
Now that Silverstein has repudiated your theory, please take that into account.
Further, what he says is unsubstantiated by media reports at the time and since then, and contrary to the FEMA report, which as I said, noted only one firefighter actually inside the building, walking the 9th floor.
Just because the report noted one firefighter in particular does not deny that others might have been there. You originally said the FEMA report said there was no firefighter presence -- your emphasis, not mine. The report, in fact, said there was at least one, and refers to "manual firefighting" that implies the presence or proximity of more.
You only read the part of the FEMA report that supports your findings. You only discussed the single firefighter after I brought it to your attention, and you still haven't dealt with the other part of the report mentioning "automatic and manual firefighting." Clearly you have fastened your hopes onto one single sentence that you have interpreted to mean that there were no firefighters in the building and no firefighting efforts.
Consider that the phrase "decided early on" was simply an account of the firefighters' attack plan for the entire site as they arrived. It doesn't necessarily say that no attempt was ever made, nor that the decision couldn't later have been rescinded.
History is precisely the study of evidence that may be sketchy and contradictory. You must decide which is the overall likely interpretation of all these bits of evidence. You cannot merely throw one out arbitrarily because it contradicts the other. The FEMA report is speaking generally; Silverstein is speaking specifically. Which is more likely to accurately depict the specific occurrence in question?
4.The mere fact they are talking serves to support both sides of this argument. It doesn't strengthen one and weaken the other.
I don't see how that can be true. You claim there was no firefighting going on in or around WTC 7. If that was true, why did the fire chief call Silverstein? Specifically what do you allege they talked about instead of what they claimed to have talked about?
You claim the fire chief called up Silverstein to discuss a controlled demolition. Why would the fire chief be involved in something like that?
Your story simply makes no sense. You insist, despite a growing mountain of evidence to the contrary, that Silverstein was ordering his building to be demolished.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 24, 2005 10:24:36 GMT -4
Even the engineer who designed the WTC towers bought the "official" explanation "hook, line and sinker" what a sap!
I saw a program over the weekend in which the engineer of record for WTC 7 says flat out he is not surprised his building collapsed due to damage from the collapsing towers and from the prolonged fires.
Turbonium, do you profess to know more than the engineer who signed his reputation on the dotted line as to the strength and reliability of his design? Please answer.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 24, 2005 19:35:56 GMT -4
1.Why he said it ? Who knows?
I am immediately skeptical of scenarios in which people are theorized to have acted extremely stupidly for no apparent reason. You don't have a good answer; that's a big hole in your theory.
Let's set the stage. Silverstein, as is theorized, has conspired with the Bush administration to destroy some of the most lucrative commercial property in the world, which Silverstein controls. At stake is the government of the U.S., the fate of the Republican party, and the credibility of the United States. Not to mention billions of dollars of Silverstein's assets at risk should the insurance companies get wind of the buildings being demolished on purpose.
Now there's a scheduled interview with a respected television program, in which Silverstein gets to tell his story personally, in his own words and at his own pace.
Does that really sound like the kind of situation where a man like Silverstein is going to screw up and admit to the whole conspiracy?
2. It would be relevant to the firefighters, because they would need to be informed by the commander to stay clear of the building; that it was going to collapse...
But you said there weren't any firefighters to worry about.
And I'd certainly find it suspicious that someone gave me the order to evacuate just prior to a building coming down. Nobody got the firefighters out of WTC 1 and 2. The alleged conspirators who are said to have rigged those buildings with explosives for a controlled demolition don't seem to have given any quarter to innocent people. According to the controlled demotion theory, the alleged demolitionists were already ruthless about killing hundreds of emergency workers in the towers. Why all of a sudden the concern about the workers in WTC 7? Why would they evacuate those firefighters before blowing the building up?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 25, 2005 9:02:27 GMT -4
That's the great thing about conspiracy "theories". They don't even have to be internally consistent.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 26, 2005 1:42:25 GMT -4
I saw a program over the weekend in which the engineer of record for WTC 7 says flat out he is not surprised his building collapsed due to damage from the collapsing towers and from the prolonged fires.
Turbonium, do you profess to know more than the engineer who signed his reputation on the dotted line as to the strength and reliability of his design? Please answer.
At least provide a link to what you are referring to exactly. Leslie Robertson said on a TLC special (Anatomy of a Collapse) that "..to the best of my knowledge the considerations of the fuel in the airplane in terms of explosion or great fire was not considered - now, we were not responsible for that aspect of the design so maybe I'm wrong.."
He also expressed remorse and dismay over the collapse, but I don't recall where he said that he was "not surprised" by the collapses. And I don't consider the fires were "prolonged" in duration of 1 to 1 1/2 hours each.
The fact that these were unprecedented events (even FEMA acknowledged this as I noted), makes the various claims of being "not surprised" by the collapses just unfathomable. Were there not hundreds of firefighters going into the towers without any of them being worried about imminent collapse? Yes. Were there any warnings being relayed to all the rescue personnel to get out of the towers, because there was imminent danger of collapses? No.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 26, 2005 2:02:10 GMT -4
And I'd certainly find it suspicious that someone gave me the order to evacuate just prior to a building coming down. Nobody got the firefighters out of WTC 1 and 2. The alleged conspirators who are said to have rigged those buildings with explosives for a controlled demolition don't seem to have given any quarter to innocent people. According to the controlled demotion theory, the alleged demolitionists were already ruthless about killing hundreds of emergency workers in the towers. Why all of a sudden the concern about the workers in WTC 7? Why would they evacuate those firefighters before blowing the building up?
Because they would have extinguished those fires easily if they had gone into the building. They would have quite a time explaining a collapse from fires without any fires left!
And the excuse noted in the FEMA report that they didn't attempt to fight those fires because of lack of water availability is absurd! They had no shortage of water to fight the fires in the towers. And there's no shortage of hydrants in downtown Manhattan they could have used. I think those responsible should be put over the coals and investigated over making that preposterous decision. "They weren't sure they were going to be able to contain the fire"? I don't believe it for a second.
Another thing - Silverstein said "And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse". He is describing two very consecutive and connected events when he says "and then" watching the collapse.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 26, 2005 3:19:30 GMT -4
The fact that these were unprecedented events (even FEMA acknowledged this as I noted), makes the various claims of being "not surprised" by the collapses just unfathomable. There's a difference between not surprised by the attack and not surprised that the building collapsed after the attack.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 26, 2005 4:28:35 GMT -4
I guess I'm a little confused here. I was under the impression that the WTC7 fire, aided by a large tank of diesel, was difficult to fight. I seem to be hearing from Turbonium that a single man with a sand bucket could have put it out.
I also don't have reason to doubt there are ways and means of getting water up seventy floors into a damaged building, but I would be very interested in learning more details about what assets firefighters had up where the fight was in each of the towers. I assume it was something a bit more sophisticated then filling up paper cups at the water coolers.
Your interpretation of the connective in that sentence is your own, Turbonium. From today's BBC Online; "The remaining animals were moved to the Zoological Society's Gardens in Regent's Park, now known as London Zoo." The wording implies that the name change was contemporous with the movement of the animals. Actually, the animals left the Tower or London in 1835, on the orders of the Duke of Wellington (as explained earlier in the BBC's article). It doesn't have to be the wrong interpretation, but it is also not the only interpretation -- or even the most likely.
(At the most absurd level, we seem to be assuming telepathic demolitionists "We made the decision....and then we watched the collapse" leaves out actually ordering action taken.)
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 26, 2005 9:32:49 GMT -4
At least provide a link to what you are referring to exactly.
Not everything's a link, Turbonium. It was on Engineering Disasters on the History Channel at the end of last week.
Leslie Robertson said on a TLC special (Anatomy of a Collapse) that "..to the best of my knowledge the considerations of the fuel in the airplane in terms of explosion or great fire was not considered...
The fuel in the airplane is irrelevant. We're talking about WTC 7. Do you see why I hate jumping around? What Robertson said in connection with the WTC towers is irrelevant. The structural engineer of record for WTC 7 has said he is not surprised at how that building failed.
Do you, or do you not, profess to know more about the structural engineering of WTC 7 than the man who designed it and takes legal responsibility for it? Yes or no.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 26, 2005 9:43:01 GMT -4
Leslie Robertson said on a TLC special (Anatomy of a Collapse) that "..to the best of my knowledge the considerations of the fuel in the airplane in terms of explosion or great fire was not considered - now, we were not responsible for that aspect of the design so maybe I'm wrong.."He also expressed remorse and dismay over the collapse, but I don't recall where he said that he was "not surprised" by the collapses. And I don't consider the fires were "prolonged" in duration of 1 to 1 1/2 hours each. -See if you can rent it and watch it again. It's available in Brazil so I imagine it is in the US too. Robertson says that when he saw the extent of the fire in the towers he wondered if they would collapse. He didn't say "I was not surprised" or anything like that, but he never said he was surprised. And as your quoted him he said he felt remorse Do you think he was lying when said he wondered if the towers would collapse? The FENA report said there were "few if any precedents" or something along those lines. Not that it was unprecedented. How do you know they weren't afraid? Are you able to read the minds of dead people you've never met? Robertson though the towers might collapse, that doesn't mean the firefighters thought so also They don't call them 'NY's Bravest' for nothing they risk their lives to save others on a daily basis Why Roberson didn't communicate his fears to the NYFD was not explored
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 26, 2005 9:51:25 GMT -4
Another thing - Silverstein said "And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse". He is describing two very consecutive and connected events when he says "and then" watching the collapse.
Turbonium, you persist in an interpretation of a statement that has been explicitly and specifically repudiated by the man who made it. Please account for his repudiation without further delay.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 26, 2005 10:49:00 GMT -4
Because they would have extinguished those fires easily if they had gone into the building. They would have quite a time explaining a collapse from fires without any fires left! You didn't really answer Jay's question in fact you left several points debunking you silly theory unreplied to Obviously the hydrants wouldn't of had enough pressure to extinguish fires in the towers as was discussed in the BBC/TLC documentary "Anatomy of a Collapse" which you claim to have seen. IIRC water mains were broken after the Towers collapsed. It's hard to believe FEMA would have made such an easily refutable claim and no one has called them on it. I have even seen CT sites claiming they had plenty of water available. I think you are like a Creationist who is convinced that God created the World in 6 days 6000 years ago and no amount of evidence to the contrary will make him chagnge his mind Still it proves nothing. He said they made the decision to pull. They FDNY decided to demolish WTC 7 or they decided to pull back? Which makes more sense? His point seems to be the fortuitousness of the timing. They moved away from the building and then it collapsed. Yes they were "very consecutive and connected events" but there is not indication that one caused the other.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 26, 2005 10:53:08 GMT -4
Turbonium,
You have yet to reply to many points debunking your theories on this thread. I suggest you reply to them before making new ones.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 26, 2005 13:36:06 GMT -4
And I don't consider the fires were "prolonged" in duration of 1 to 1 1/2 hours each.
Plenty prolonged enough to weaken structural members and cause deformation of fasteners and joints. It really doesn't take very long for a heavy Class B fire load with plenty of air to get really hot - especially when kicked off by thousands of gallons of well dispersed jet fuel. And, yes, I said "plenty of air". I've already refuted your claim that the fire was air-starved and dying.
The fact that these were unprecedented events (even FEMA acknowledged this as I noted), makes the various claims of being "not surprised" by the collapses just unfathomable. Were there not hundreds of firefighters going into the towers without any of them being worried about imminent collapse? Yes.
I could just as easily interpret this to mean "not surprised in retrospect". It makes at least as much sense as your tortured and persistent spin on Silverstein's phrasing. But, no, I don't think the firefighters expected the first collapse - with the possible exception noted below. The event was simply unique.
Were there any warnings being relayed to all the rescue personnel to get out of the towers, because there was imminent danger of collapses? No.
No. Numerous attempts were made to contact rescuers in the second tower after the collapse of the first tower. (I think, but am not interested enough to look for the reference, that there was some concern among fire officers before the collapse of the first tower as well.)
Because they would have extinguished those fires easily if they had gone into the building.
That's just ludicrous. You clearly have no idea what high-rise firefighting entails, even in a building not damaged by a fuel-laden jetliner. I do. Your statement bears no relationship to reality.
They would have quite a time explaining a collapse from fires without any fires left!
No. Buildings collapse after fires are put out, too.
And the excuse noted in the FEMA report that they didn't attempt to fight those fires because of lack of water availability is absurd! They had no shortage of water to fight the fires in the towers. And there's no shortage of hydrants in downtown Manhattan they could have used.
What's absurd is that you are making assertions without any understanding of the facts.
First of all, buillding fire systems rely on standpipes and, for high-rises, fire pumps. Do you assert that there was no damage to the risers or pumps, or no disruption to the power for the pumps? Do you assert that the sprinkler system wasn't so heavily damaged that the water pressure wouldn't have been compromised by all the broken lines?
Second, this was a building that was heavily damaged with widespread fire. I find it entirely believable that the fire load was beyond managing with whatever handlines might have been hauled up and pressed into service. I find it entirely believable that the thousands of GPM necessary to attack such a fire simply wasn't available.
I think those responsible should be put over the coals and investigated over making that preposterous decision. "They weren't sure they were going to be able to contain the fire"? I don't believe it for a second.
It is you claims which are preposterous, relying on ignorance of building firefighting and based on an incorrect assumption as to the progress of the fire. Tell you what - why don't you tell me how many engine and truck companies you think it takes to fight a fire many dozens of stories above the ground, in a building heavily damaged by a jet airliner impact and explosion, with a heavy Class B fire load, and oh, by the way, don't forget when you pull up on the scene you also have many thousands of civilians to evacuate too? What equipment do you hump up to the fire floors, expert? How much water do you need to flow? If the bulding fire pumps are out, what kind of pressure do your pumpers need to maintain to get water to the fire floor?
You seem to know everything about firefighting. I'm sure you can come up with the answers in no time.
|
|