|
Post by turbonium on Jul 20, 2007 2:19:10 GMT -4
Ironiclly Turbonium’s post above is a perfect example of what Leary was talking about. He believes the firemen would not have entered the towers is they suspected there lives were at risk. These are guys who opted for a not that well paying profession in which they regularly risk their lives to save total strangers. Numerous firemen before and after them died after entering much less study buildings that were ablaze. If they KNEW the towers were about to collapse presumably they would not have gone in but I don’t think that the suspicion that they MIGHT would have prevented them from doing so. For sure, many firefighters have died or been injured in these situations. But countless others have stayed alive by getting out of / not entering buildings that they recognized were on the brink of collapse (either in part or in whole). Thousands of firefighters went inside the towers, and if any of them felt it was too dangerous to continue, they would have said something about it and/or evacuated the building. None of them did, which is another indication (along with the tapes - see below) that they felt it was safe to continue with their efforts. Yes they had years of experience fighting fires but none for buildings that had been hit by large passenger jets (or even small planes), none for buildings that had extensive pre-fire structural damage and fireproofing removal and very little with uncontrolled fires in central core buildings. Other fires have been much worse, and burned for much longer, than the WTC fires. There have been plenty of wartime building fires with extensive structural damage. Every fire is different, and each one has to be handled in a way they believe is best suited to the situation. Funny that he tries to have it both ways 1) Rodriguez was amazingly brave for ignoring the danger of accompanying the firemen up the fire stairs well below the impact / fire zone but 2) the fact that the firemen went in is evidence that the danger was unforeseeable. How is that having it "both ways"? Such rubbish. There is no indication they were unaware of “how severe the fires were”. Wrong. The firefighter tapes clearly prove that they believed the fires could be handled (ie: "with two more lines"). Those were the last words spoken by a firefighter, just seconds before he perished in the collapse. He didn't mention anything about the building being unstable, or that the fires were out of control.
|
|
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 Jul 20, 2007 12:04:51 GMT -4
Ironiclly Turbonium’s post above is a perfect example of what Leary was talking about. He believes the firemen would not have entered the towers is they suspected there lives were at risk. These are guys who opted for a not that well paying profession in which they regularly risk their lives to save total strangers. Numerous firemen before and after them died after entering much less study buildings that were ablaze. If they KNEW the towers were about to collapse presumably they would not have gone in but I don’t think that the suspicion that they MIGHT would have prevented them from doing so. For sure, many firefighters have died or been injured in these situations. But countless others have stayed alive by getting out of / not entering buildings that they recognized were on the brink of collapse (either in part or in whole). Thousands of firefighters went inside the towers, and if any of them felt it was too dangerous to continue, they would have said something about it and/or evacuated the building. None of them did, which is another indication (along with the tapes - see below) that they felt it was safe to continue with their efforts. Obviously if they knew or were reasonably certain the towers would collapse most if not all the firefighters would have evacuated. But what if they thought if was a possibility? Would they have pulled out? You have no evidence they would have. Your line of reasoning ‘they only stated because they were sure it was safe’ breaks down there and like it or not it does demean their heroism. Also: - They weren’t structural engineers and though some senior chiefs were fire engineers I doubt any of them were in the building. Thus the men in the towers might not have recognized the signs of imminent collapse. - Though presumably they were trained to recognize signs of immanent collapse they didn’t have much experience fighting fires in buildings like the towers. Thus the men in the towers might not have recognized the signs of imminent collapse. - Few if any of them were in the areas were it is believed the collapses initiated, firefighters on lower floors or even other parts of those floors would not have seen any signs. - There were serious problems with the radios an evacuation order was given to evacuate just before the South Tower collapsed but even by the time the North Tower fell many of them hadn’t gotten it. It’s quite possible that some fire fighters said something about an impending or possible collapse but were unheard by any one who survived. Apparently an engineer from the OEM recognized signs of an imminent collapse so either a) he was “in on it” or b) these signs (presumably the bowing of the columns) the towers could come down. If you postulate a) they us why he would have warned the NYFD. Yes they had years of experience fighting fires but none for buildings that had been hit by large passenger jets (or even small planes), none for buildings that had extensive pre-fire structural damage and fireproofing removal and very little with uncontrolled fires in central core buildings. Other fires have been much worse, and burned for much longer, than the WTC fires. Many of them were structures very or totally different from the WTC, none had the accompanying structural/fire-proofing damage, none had tens of thousands of gallons/liters of accelerant dumped into them, none of them had floor trusses as long as the Twin Towers. And many of them collapsed. Look at pictures of European and Japanese cities from WW2. Did you see what happened to that building near Amsterdam hit by a 747 or the one in Sao Paulo hit by the Airbus? Remind me to quote you on that next time you bring up the (inaccurate) “first time in history” argument. No arguments from me there. Funny that he tries to have it both ways 1) Rodriguez was amazingly brave for ignoring the danger of accompanying the firemen up the fire stairs well below the impact / fire zone but 2) the fact that the firemen went in is evidence that the danger was unforeseeable. How is that having it "both ways"? Such rubbish. Why do I have to explain the obvious to you? If there was no imminent danger for firemen in the impact / fire zones there wasn’t any for Rodriguez in the fire stairs 50 – 90 floors below. Oh yes please do me a favor and pull out the Orio Palmer quote, he was in a (fire) stairwell on a floor NIST said had weak fires. If you can find a similar quote from a fireman who was in an area they said had strong fires let us know, but good luck no “truther” has found one yet AFAIK. EDIT - broken quote tag fixed
|
|
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 Jul 20, 2007 12:44:45 GMT -4
Yes several firemen and other survivors reported hearing explosions in the towers none except for Willie “the Liar” Rodriguez and one other guy in the basement said after 9/11 they still believed bombs had gone off. Besides PW’s link Rodriguez’s credibility is cast in doubt by research of mine available on another thread here. The other guy described seeing and being burnt by a fireball which corresponds much better to a fuel air explosion than demolition charges (which don’t produce fire).
And yes several firemen said they saw the towers give out below the impact zones or to have seen flashes but this isn’t seen in any of the photos and videos of the collapses and is contradicted by other witnesses.
Also many quotes have been selectively edited by the (bend the) "truth" movement.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 20, 2007 20:05:30 GMT -4
You see we can't even get to the core columns because the NIST ignores Newton again. They ignore the fact that the load of the collapsing section would not be totally at work on the topmost undamaged floor but transmitted into the falling section as well. The tops of the towers were not made of depleted Uranium but the same stuff as the rest of the lower section. In any collision energy is divided between the two objects. In this situation the lower section should have been solidly connected to the planet and able to withstand greater force than the damaged more lightly built upper section.
How did they get away with this? Easy, they ignored the Undamaged tower sections in their absolute whitewash of an investigation.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 20, 2007 20:17:26 GMT -4
Newton's laws do not apply to structures; they apply to masses. The top floors deliver the same kinetic energy as intact structures as they would if instantly transmogrified to an equivalent mass of lime jello.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 20, 2007 20:20:39 GMT -4
Newton's laws do not apply to structures; they apply to masses. The top floors deliver the same kinetic energy as intact structures as they would if instantly transmogrified to an equivalent mass of lime jello. Get your Jello tested for Alcoholic contamination. ;D Transmogrified is a new one to me, but i like it.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 21, 2007 4:26:30 GMT -4
Obviously if they knew or were reasonably certain the towers would collapse most if not all the firefighters would have evacuated. But what if they thought if was a possibility? Would they have pulled out? You have no evidence they would have. Your line of reasoning ‘they only stated because they were sure it was safe’ breaks down there and like it or not it does demean their heroism. Nonsense. They went in because nothing indicated to them that a collapse (especially not a global collapse) was imminent. That's entirely different than saying "they were sure it was safe". There is no such thing as a 100% guaranteed safe fire. That's why they weigh the risks beforehand and during the firefighting. - They weren’t structural engineers and though some senior chiefs were fire engineers I doubt any of them were in the building. Thus the men in the towers might not have recognized the signs of imminent collapse. Well, that's no different than in most any other firefighting situation, obviously. - Though presumably they were trained to recognize signs of immanent collapse they didn’t have much experience fighting fires in buildings like the towers. Thus the men in the towers might not have recognized the signs of imminent collapse. Ah, yes. The "unique" towers argument. Designed to collapse without warning like a house of cards. - Few if any of them were in the areas were it is believed the collapses initiated, firefighters on lower floors or even other parts of those floors would not have seen any signs. Perhaps that's also because there were no signs of imminent collapse to see? - There were serious problems with the radios an evacuation order was given to evacuate just before the South Tower collapsed but even by the time the North Tower fell many of them hadn’t gotten it. It’s quite possible that some fire fighters said something about an impending or possible collapse but were unheard by any one who survived. Speculation. Apparently an engineer from the OEM recognized signs of an imminent collapse so either a) he was “in on it” or b) these signs (presumably the bowing of the columns) the towers could come down. If you postulate a) they us why he would have warned the NYFD. Does this engineer have Superman-type magnification eyes? Many of them were structures very or totally different from the WTC, none had the accompanying structural/fire-proofing damage, none had tens of thousands of gallons/liters of accelerant dumped into them, none of them had floor trusses as long as the Twin Towers. The "unique" towers argument, Part II. And many of them collapsed. Look at pictures of European and Japanese cities from WW2. Did you see what happened to that building near Amsterdam hit by a 747 or the one in Sao Paulo hit by the Airbus? Were any of them symmetrical, virtually free-fall collapses, immediately occurring from an upright, stable condition? That would be quite something. Why do I have to explain the obvious to you? If there was no imminent danger for firemen in the impact / fire zones there wasn’t any for Rodriguez in the fire stairs 50 – 90 floors below. So Rodriguez and the firefighters were both very brave, which is just what I've been saying all along. You're making up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Oh yes please do me a favor and pull out the Orio Palmer quote, he was in a (fire) stairwell on a floor NIST said had weak fires. If you can find a similar quote from a fireman who was in an area they said had strong fires let us know, but good luck no “truther” has found one yet AFAIK. You've not heard the tape with the firefighter calling for two more lines? I'll post the link for it in my next post.
|
|
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 Jul 21, 2007 11:11:20 GMT -4
Obviously if they knew or were reasonably certain the towers would collapse most if not all the firefighters would have evacuated. But what if they thought if was a possibility? Would they have pulled out? You have no evidence they would have. Your line of reasoning ‘they only stated because they were sure it was safe’ breaks down there and like it or not it does demean their heroism. Nonsense. They went in because nothing indicated to them that a collapse (especially not a global collapse) was imminent. That's entirely different than saying "they were sure it was safe". There is no such thing as a 100% guaranteed safe fire. That's why they weigh the risks beforehand and during the firefighting. We’re both speculating here, none of us really know at what perceived danger level they would have pulled out. But this is your theory and the burden of proof is on you. As even you admit many other firemen have died in building collapses. Are we to assume based on your logic that those building must have been demolished as well? Why aren’t there any firemen on record as supporting your theory? I propose you do some research, visit some fire stations near where you live and run your argument by the firefighters, get back to us with your findings. And no I won’t take responsibility for your medical bills if any of them react violently. - They weren’t structural engineers and though some senior chiefs were fire engineers I doubt any of them were in the building. Thus the men in the towers might not have recognized the signs of imminent collapse. Well, that's no different than in most any other firefighting situation, obviously. Yes and perhaps that is part of the reasons firefighters have died in collapses before and after 9/11. - Though presumably they were trained to recognize signs of immanent collapse they didn’t have much experience fighting fires in buildings like the towers. Thus the men in the towers might not have recognized the signs of imminent collapse. Ah, yes. The "unique" towers argument. Designed to collapse without warning like a house of cards. - Strawman, they of course weren’t designed to collapse at all but were subject to unforeseen circumstances (the effect of the post impact fires on the steel frame). Even if you argue they had been so designed numerous structures have failed in situations they were designed to survive. - Are building supposed to be designed so that if they collapse they are will give obvious warning signs well beforehand? - The towers were vastly different from the overwhelming majority of buildings they had responded to before. There have only been a small number of major fires in major high rises in NYC (or anywhere else) and less than a handful in steel frame central core buildings (I only know of 2 in NYC before 9/11 one was the ’75 WTC fire how many 26 + year veterans were in the towers?). - You mock the “unique towers argument” but have not debunked it. - Few if any of them were in the areas were it is believed the collapses initiated, firefighters on lower floors or even other parts of those floors would not have seen any signs. Perhaps that's also because there were no signs of imminent collapse to see? Evasion noted, provide evidence there were firefighters in the parts of the towers were NIST said the collapses initiated. AFAIK the closest they got was Chief Palmer in a stairwell at the bottom edge of the WTC 2 fire/impact zone. - There were serious problems with the radios an evacuation order was given to evacuate just before the South Tower collapsed but even by the time the North Tower fell many of them hadn’t gotten it. It’s quite possible that some fire fighters said something about an impending or possible collapse but were unheard by any one who survived. Speculation. Yes which is why I said “quite possible”. Your whole argument is speculative but that hasn’t stopped to from making it in far less uncertain terms. Apparently an engineer from the OEM recognized signs of an imminent collapse so either a) he was “in on it” or b) these signs (presumably the bowing of the columns) the towers could come down. If you postulate a) they us why he would have warned the NYFD. Does this engineer have Superman-type magnification eyes? Evasion noted, perhaps you’d be willing to actually answer the question: If he wasn’t “in on it” how did he know? If he were “in on it” why did he advise the FD? He didn’t need to “have Superman-type magnification eyes” the bowing of the columns was plainly visible in a video shot from close to Trinity Church. Many of them were structures very or totally different from the WTC, none had the accompanying structural/fire-proofing damage, none had tens of thousands of gallons/liters of accelerant dumped into them, none of them had floor trusses as long as the Twin Towers. The "unique" towers argument, Part II. An argument you have still failed to debunk. Cite an example of a building fire that met all the conditions above that didn’t collapse. And many of them collapsed. Look at pictures of European and Japanese cities from WW2. Did you see what happened to that building near Amsterdam hit by a 747 or the one in Sao Paulo hit by the Airbus? Were any of them symmetrical, virtually free-fall collapses, immediately occurring from an upright, stable condition? That would be quite something. The virtually free fall argument has been already debunked even by truthers like Hoffman, as for the collapse times AFAIK the only case we have film or video of is from Sao Paulo. Though not symmetrical the collapse appears to be ‘virtual free fall’, the Amsterdam building collapsed fairly symmetrically. As to whether there is film footage of WW2 building collapses or whether they were symmetrical or not I don’t really have the time or interest to search for and comb through old photos and news reels even the ones available online. But if you are so inclined ‘knock yourself out’. Why do I have to explain the obvious to you? If there was no imminent danger for firemen in the impact / fire zones there wasn’t any for Rodriguez in the fire stairs 50 – 90 floors below. So Rodriguez and the firefighters were both very brave, which is just what I've been saying all along. You're making up a contradiction that doesn't exist. When it’s convenient for you their was no imminent danger for the firemen in the impact / fire zone and when the opposite better fits your theory not only was it dangerous for them but it was dangerous for someone well below it. Yes I’ve heard it, I even told you’re the name of the firefighter and where he was, try and pay attention! Go ahead post it, it doesn’t prove anything. EDIT - quote tag problem fixed
|
|
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 Jul 21, 2007 11:22:07 GMT -4
You see we can't even get to the core columns because the NIST ignores Newton again. They ignore the fact that the load of the collapsing section would not be totally at work on the topmost undamaged floor but transmitted into the falling section as well. The tops of the towers were not made of depleted Uranium but the same stuff as the rest of the lower section. In any collision energy is divided between the two objects. In this situation the lower section should have been solidly connected to the planet and able to withstand greater force than the damaged more lightly built upper section. How did they get away with this? Easy, they ignored the Undamaged tower sections in their absolute whitewash of an investigation. Amazing that every qualified engineer in the World seems to have missed something you find so obvious. Either a) they are all stupid and/or cowards and/or corrupt or b) you are absurdly arrogant Though I imagine your vote is for option "a)", mine is for "b)"
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 21, 2007 20:30:54 GMT -4
I'm definitely being arrogant so you're right on B, I'm here to entertain. Engineers eh, well I've met some real duffers and I've met and worked with some really clever ones. One thing that I have noticed among all of them is that when it comes to solving a problem or offering an opinion they need all the facts. The other point is they are people, mostly. Being people they are subject to the same BS as the rest of us. The Gravitational collapse of the Towers due to structural failure was driven into our brains before the dust had settled, remember Harley guy,' mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense'. The experts on TV putting forward the official position as it happened, there were no doubts raised, questions were answered instantly. www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEbrPQmuXf0This became a Television event as it was intended, it wasn't left to become an Engineering investigation. The only Engineers we were left to be concerned with were driving around in Toyota Hilux's in Afghanistan under the leadership of Dr Evil Osama. As far as every Engineer in the world being scammed by this I think you're kidding yourself and your continued attempts at dismissing the ones critical of the OCT are a great source of entertainment to me.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 22, 2007 6:03:34 GMT -4
We’re both speculating here, none of us really know at what perceived danger level they would have pulled out. But this is your theory and the burden of proof is on you. As even you admit many other firemen have died in building collapses. Are we to assume based on your logic that those building must have been demolished as well? Talk about wacky assumptions. It's not worth wasting the time it would take to point out all the flaws. Why aren’t there any firemen on record as supporting your theory? Perhaps you should first take into account that 343 NYFD personnel died in the collapses who were not around afterwards to talk about it. And IIRC, there are retired NYFD members who have disputed with the official theory and/or believe there were explosives inside the buildings. I propose you do some research, visit some fire stations near where you live and run your argument by the firefighters, get back to us with your findings. Exactly what argument would that be? That there were 343 NYFD members who perished, without any structural signs that the buildings would suddenly collapse to the ground in under 20 seconds? And no I won’t take responsibility for your medical bills if any of them react violently. I think you'd have more to worry about by telling them how 343 firefighters failed to perceive the signs of collapse that you contend existed beforehand. - Are building supposed to be designed so that if they collapse they are will give obvious warning signs well beforehand? Um.....yes, they are. Fires are progressive, random, and asymmetrical phenomena. They affect various sections of a structure over X period of time. The structural response - weakening, non-support (ie: drywall) damage, or support failure - to a fire is likewise progressive, random, and asymmetrical. Millions of wood-framed house fires, apartment fires, etc. have occurred in the past 100 years. Many of them have burned to the ground. But not one of them went immediately from an intact, fully stable structural condition, into total, symmetrical collapse to the ground, within mere seconds. They fail progressively. Maybe a crossbeam fails, one end of it falling to the floor. Or a supporting wall sags and the floor above begins to crack and sink. But the structures never fail at every support point, at the exact same instant. . - The towers were vastly different from the overwhelming majority of buildings they had responded to before. There have only been a small number of major fires in major high rises in NYC (or anywhere else) and less than a handful in steel frame central core buildings (I only know of 2 in NYC before 9/11 one was the ’75 WTC fire how many 26 + year veterans were in the towers?). But that doesn't mean they were built to instantly collapse from a completely stable condition. Oh, I forgot - there was some "inward bowing" on a section of one wall beforehand. From that, um, "sign of failure', the tower totally collapsed in seconds. Evasion noted, perhaps you’d be willing to actually answer the question: If he wasn’t “in on it” how did he know? If he were “in on it” why did he advise the FD? Do you have a source for this? He didn’t need to “have Superman-type magnification eyes” the bowing of the columns was plainly visible in a video shot from close to Trinity Church. "Plainly visible"? Not from any videos I've seen. Exactly which clip are you referring to? The virtually free fall argument has been already debunked even by truthers like Hoffman, So you must believe that NIST's claim of a virtual free-fall has also been "debunked". In fact, as I said earlier, there is no way to accurately measure the total collapse times for the towers. The dust clouds obscure any view of the lower sections during collapse. If one argues it took, say, 18 seconds for one of the towers to collapse, exactly what does that mean? That there was about 7 seconds of resistance offered by the tower? Since we can see the collapses were very steady from start to finish, we can therefore assume the resistance being claimed to exist should be taken as 8 seconds of resistance over the entire 80 or so lower floors. That averages 0.1 seconds of resistance for each of the 80 (12 foot high) floors. 12 foot high sections of 47 steel core columns and 236 perimeter columns, offering an amazing 0.1 seconds of resistance!! How can that seriously be considered as valid, quantifiable structural resistance? as for the collapse times AFAIK the only case we have film or video of is from Sao Paulo. Though not symmetrical the collapse appears to be ‘virtual free fall’, the Amsterdam building collapsed fairly symmetrically. Please post links to these videos so I know exactly what to reference. There are countless clips online. When it’s convenient for you their was no imminent danger for the firemen in the impact / fire zone and when the opposite better fits your theory not only was it dangerous for them but it was dangerous for someone well below it. Where do you come up with this stuff? We are talking about whether or not there were signs that the firefighters saw (or might have seen) which indicated that they were in imminent danger of a total structural collapse. I've said that there were no such signs, which is why they didn't try to evacuate the buildings. How does my argument about Rodriguez relate in any way to this? He and some of the firefighters knew that total collapse was imminent? No, they didn't say that. And I never clamed that they did say that. Yes I’ve heard it, I even told you’re the name of the firefighter and where he was, try and pay attention! Go ahead post it, it doesn’t prove anything. Sure it does. You claimed... "There is no indication they were unaware of “how severe the fires were”"The tape proves that at least one of the firefighters did not consider (or was "unaware", according to you) the fires were that severe.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 22, 2007 17:36:30 GMT -4
I'm definitely being arrogant so you're right on B, I'm here to entertain. Engineers eh, well I've met some real duffers and I've met and worked with some really clever ones. One thing that I have noticed among all of them is that when it comes to solving a problem or offering an opinion they need all the facts. The other point is they are people, mostly. Being people they are subject to the same BS as the rest of us. The Gravitational collapse of the Towers due to structural failure was driven into our brains before the dust had settled, remember Harley guy,' mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense'. The experts on TV putting forward the official position as it happened, there were no doubts raised, questions were answered instantly. www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEbrPQmuXf0This became a Television event as it was intended, it wasn't left to become an Engineering investigation. The only Engineers we were left to be concerned with were driving around in Toyota Hilux's in Afghanistan under the leadership of Dr Evil Osama. As far as every Engineer in the world being scammed by this I think you're kidding yourself and your continued attempts at dismissing the ones critical of the OCT are a great source of entertainment to me. So, these professionals who just need "the facts" were completely buffaloed by the media coverage, and have thusly ignored their knowledge, education, experience and facts? Read your post again, it makes no sense...and you have grossly insulted a vast number of professional engineers.
|
|
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 Jul 22, 2007 17:44:10 GMT -4
We’re both speculating here, none of us really know at what perceived danger level they would have pulled out. But this is your theory and the burden of proof is on you. As even you admit many other firemen have died in building collapses. Are we to assume based on your logic that those building must have been demolished as well? Talk about wacky assumptions. It's not worth wasting the time it would take to point out all the flaws. OK then just point out the highlights. Why aren’t there any firemen on record as supporting your theory? Perhaps you should first take into account that 343 NYFD personnel died in the collapses who were not around afterwards to talk about it. And IIRC, there are retired NYFD members who have disputed with the official theory and/or believe there were explosives inside the buildings. If your theory is correct it’s odd that no firemen, especially (but not limited to) ones who were there and had friends who died didn’t come to the same conclusion and come forward. I believe you are recollecting INcorrectly (about the retired firemen) if it were so their accounts would be prominently plastered across the tops of the homepages of every truther site. But prove me wrong and find one if they exist. The closest you’ll get is an auxiliary fireman who says he only got to the area after the collapses who was quoted by a truther as saying he though there were explosives but now says he was misquoted. I propose you do some research, visit some fire stations near where you live and run your argument by the firefighters, get back to us with your findings. Exactly what argument would that be? That there were 343 NYFD members who perished, without any structural signs that the buildings would suddenly collapse to the ground in under 20 seconds? That their fallen comrades would have ditched the building at the 1st sign of real danger. And no I won’t take responsibility for your medical bills if any of them react violently. I think you'd have more to worry about by telling them how 343 firefighters failed to perceive the signs of collapse that you contend existed beforehand. Since as far as can be determined none of them were in locations were such signs would have been visible I don’t see why that would be a problem. - Are building supposed to be designed so that if they collapse they are will give obvious warning signs well beforehand? Um.....yes, they are. Fires are progressive, random, and asymmetrical phenomena. They affect various sections of a structure over X period of time. The structural response - weakening, non-support (ie: drywall) damage, or support failure - to a fire is likewise progressive, random, and asymmetrical. Funny truthers love to go on about the towers’ load redistribution capacities, thus it is not unreasonable to assume the buildings would have looked more or less stable and symmetrical as structural elements failed locally till a “hair that broke the camel’s back” point was reached. “Millions”, “not one”, “never” - I suppose you have some citations for those claims? A couple of Brazilian, Indian, Turkish and American buildings have collapsed pretty much without warning due to age and/or poor construction. - The towers were vastly different from the overwhelming majority of buildings they had responded to before. There have only been a small number of major fires in major high rises in NYC (or anywhere else) and less than a handful in steel frame central core buildings (I only know of 2 in NYC before 9/11 one was the ’75 WTC fire how many 26 + year veterans were in the towers?). But that doesn't mean they were built to instantly collapse from a completely stable condition. Oh, I forgot - there was some "inward bowing" on a section of one wall beforehand. From that, um, "sign of failure', the tower totally collapsed in seconds. Nice change of tack. They weren’t built to do so but they did. The terminal at DeGaulle (sp?) airport seemingly collapsed without warning and there was no apparent cause (fire, impact etc) the buildings in Poland and Germany that collapsed a few years ago due to excess snow don’t seem to have give much warning either. Evasion noted, perhaps you’d be willing to actually answer the question: If he wasn’t “in on it” how did he know? If he were “in on it” why did he advise the FD? Do you have a source for this? Albert Turi Chief of Safety NYFD: “Then Steve Mosiello, Chief Ganci's executive assistant, came over to the command post and he said we're getting reports from OEM that the buildings are not structurally sound, and of course that got our attention really quick, and Pete said, well, who are we getting these reports from? And then Steve brought an EMT person over to the command post who was I think sent as a runner to tell us this and Chief Ganci questioned him, where are we getting these reports? And his answer was something, you know, we're not sure, OEM is just reporting this. And within ten seconds of that conversation…[the South Tower began to collapse]” graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110142.PDF pgs 13 - 4 IIRC Chief Ganci and/or Mosiello and the 9/11 C. said this info. came from an OEM engineer. He didn’t need to “have Superman-type magnification eyes” the bowing of the columns was plainly visible in a video shot from close to Trinity Church. "Plainly visible"? Not from any videos I've seen. Exactly which clip are you referring to? I’ll try and find the link for you. The virtually free fall argument has been already debunked even by truthers like Hoffman, So you must believe that NIST's claim of a virtual free-fall has also been "debunked". It depends on how you define “virtual free fall” I thought you were referring to a 9 – 10 second collapse time as claimed by many truthers. Not that relevant but your math skills disappoint me, 18 – 9 = 9 not 7. Are you theorizing that charges were planted on all/most columns on all/most floors? How long do you think that would have taken to do surreptitiously? Amazing they could have done so undetected. All that was needed for the collapse to proceed was for the floor connections to fail followed by the then unbraced columns. The floor connections were only designed to bear the static load of single floors not the dynamic load of the 20 – 109 floors above crashing down on them. Remember that the collapsing sections would have been picking up mass and velocity on the way down. Read the B & Z paper and see Kaussel’s references to his calculations about the delay offered by the buildings’ structures. They found the floor connections etc would have only minimally add to the collapse times. Call me crazy but I put more faith in the calculations of 3 top PhD professors of structural engineering from 2 of the top schools in the world (Northwestern and MIT) than in the hand waving/intuition of someone who has no training or expertise on the subject. as for the collapse times AFAIK the only case we have film or video of is from Sao Paulo. Though not symmetrical the collapse appears to be ‘virtual free fall’, the Amsterdam building collapsed fairly symmetrically. Please post links to these videos so I know exactly what to reference. There are countless clips online. I’ve only seen the collapse of the SP building on TV broadcasts; I’m not hunting around for online clips. As indicated there is no video/film footage of the Amsterdam collapse. When it’s convenient for you their was no imminent danger for the firemen in the impact / fire zone and when the opposite better fits your theory not only was it dangerous for them but it was dangerous for someone well below it. Where do you come up with this stuff? We are talking about whether or not there were signs that the firefighters saw (or might have seen) which indicated that they were in imminent danger of a total structural collapse. I've said that there were no such signs, which is why they didn't try to evacuate the buildings. How does my argument about Rodriguez relate in any way to this? He and some of the firefighters knew that total collapse was imminent? No, they didn't say that. And I never clamed that they did say that. I never said (or insinuated) that you said (or insinuated) that. If it wasn’t dangerous for the firefighters in the upper floors how could it have been so for someone who never got within 50 floors of the impact fire/zone? Yes I’ve heard it, I even told you’re the name of the firefighter and where he was, try and pay attention! Go ahead post it, it doesn’t prove anything. Sure it does. You claimed... "There is no indication they were unaware of “how severe the fires were”"The tape proves that at least one of the firefighters did not consider (or was "unaware", according to you) the fires were that severe. He was in a stairwell at the bottom edge of the fire/impact zone and thus he was presumably referring to his immediate location. He would have had no way of knowing what conditions were elsewhere in the building. Go ahead post the link, I double dare you!
|
|
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 Jul 22, 2007 17:51:31 GMT -4
I'm definitely being arrogant so you're right on B, I'm here to entertain. Engineers eh, well I've met some real duffers and I've met and worked with some really clever ones. One thing that I have noticed among all of them is that when it comes to solving a problem or offering an opinion they need all the facts. The other point is they are people, mostly. Being people they are subject to the same BS as the rest of us. The Gravitational collapse of the Towers due to structural failure was driven into our brains before the dust had settled, remember Harley guy,' mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense'. The experts on TV putting forward the official position as it happened, there were no doubts raised, questions were answered instantly. www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEbrPQmuXf0This became a Television event as it was intended, it wasn't left to become an Engineering investigation. The only Engineers we were left to be concerned with were driving around in Toyota Hilux's in Afghanistan under the leadership of Dr Evil Osama. As far as every Engineer in the world being scammed by this I think you're kidding yourself and your continued attempts at dismissing the ones critical of the OCT are a great source of entertainment to me. So, these professionals who just need "the facts" were completely buffaloed by the media coverage, and have thusly ignored their knowledge, education, experience and facts? Read your post again, it makes no sense...and you have grossly insulted a vast number of professional engineers. Amazing that not a single engineer or physicist (except one)was able to see through the smoke screen (or if they did chose to remain silent) but the super intelligent/insightful/unfoolable 3on thetree with no apperent training can see through it so clearly. We here at AH are truly luck to have him as a member. Funny also that not even Hoffman one of the more scientificlly oriented truthers has advanced this argument.
|
|
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 Jul 22, 2007 17:55:23 GMT -4
In this situation the lower section should have been solidly connected to the planet and able to withstand greater force than the damaged more lightly built upper section. Why would being connected to the ground have made the lower sections more resistant? I haven't seen any truther "scientist" say that before. EDIT - typo
|
|