It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What started the fires in 7?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Biscuit
If you have no idea what started the fire than why do you 100% deny that the fire was started by falling debris?

Where did I 100% deny it? I haven't seen it proven but that doesn't mean that I 100% deny it could have happened.

The fires may have been ignited by another cause, I don't know. I'm not going to believe that 7's fires were started by falling burning debris just because someone thinks so!


You mentioned free fall speed

No, I mentioned freefall acceleration, not speed.


Well, sadly for you it is a fact that the building was on fire for that long. If you are going to deny facts than I am not sure where this debate can go. I apologize for guessing that you understood the facts.

You probably didn't read the link that I gave you, or you didn't understand what was written in the link that I gave you.


It is about understanding the cause of an event while debating the specifics. We know flaming debris fell on WTC 7,

Correction, we know that debris fell on 7. You think that it was flaming but I've yet to see any proof that it was. It might have been, so where's the proof?



we will never know how that debris started the fires. Just because we don't know how does not mean that flaming debris didn't start the fire!

See the part in bold? Without knowing how the debris started the fires, then you don't know if the debris started the fires.




posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Biscuit
 


I did readit. Recall that two planes smashed into the WTC causing a massivive amount of debris.



Right after the airplanes hit the WTC 1&2 I did not see any building parts dropping on WTC 7 can you please provide that particular video? I must have missed that one, thanks.


Also go back and watch footage of the towers burning, there is debris falling the entire time. From paper work to chunks of building, there was debris falling the entire time they were burning.


Well yes, there was some falling debris and no one is claiming there wasn’t, however, I do not see anything hitting WTC7 because it was farther away. I really do not see any damage to WTC7 while WTC 1&2 were still standing.


I am not going to address your thoughts on the validity of the reports. That is for other threads. Lets talk about what is the most likely cause of the fires started the fires.


I agree


Follow me here - we know that flaming debris fell on WTC 7 from the very first plane impact all the way through the towers falling.


What? (we know that flaming debris fell on WTC 7) that is yet to be proven I have not seen any evidences that supports that ridiculous claim, infact cameras did show WTC7 right after WTC 1&2 were hit and it shows it undamaged.


That debris than started a fire or fires. We don't know were or what burned first


Your right we don’t know! You are only speculating just given your opinion, and that my friend is not a fact.


but we don't need to in order to know that the falling debris started the fire.


We don’t need to know, wow! we are looking for facts thank you, and “opinions” just don’t cut it.


We will never know exactly how and asking for that is an unreasonable burden of proof.


No I disagree with you on that. Assumptions, speculations, and opinions are not facts
We are looking for scientific proof that will support real facts.


Or you could believe that firemen who have dedicated their lives to stopping fires and saving lives intentionally set WTC 7 on fire. However you have no evidence for this at all.


I do not believe anyone on this thread, has implied firemen set the fires in WTC 7
I love how you used the word “dedication”, and I agree these good men are. However, I do recall some of these dedicated firemen saying they saw and heard explosions, and even recorded some of the sounds of explosions going off, I thought; now that is true dedications don’t you?



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I can back up what Good Ol Dave stetd - several of my friends worked
at WTC 7 for IT department of Morgan Stanley. Two of them were outside
the building at 8:45 am and watched as Flight 11 slammed into WTC1
Were ther 15 minutes later as United 175 crashed into WTC 2. The
building was evacuated starting soon after the first plane hit - it was
emptied just after 9:30 am, about 1/2 hour before WTC 2 collapsed

Now as far as the fires - Vincent Dunn, retired FDNY deputy chief and
author of THE COLLAPSE OF BURNING BUILDINGS, has an article in
last months FIREHOUSE magazine concerning collapse potenial of
high raise buildings. Dunn goes into detail concerning fires at WTC 7

There were fires on the 5th through 14th floors (excepting 12), 22-23
28-30. As can see fires were extensive through much of the building.

The debris strikes on the south face of WTC 7 smashed many of the windows, buring debris from WTC 1 entered through the broken windows. WTC 5 & 6 next to WTC 7 were fully involved in fires providing another
ignition source. So why all quibbling over exactly which sparks set the
fires considering there were more than enough fires around.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

You have desperately resorted to twisting everything Berry Jennings said and everyone reading your post can clearly see that.


On the contrary, I have read and reread his testimony to make sure that I fully understood him, and more importantly, to try to mesh it with the known facts. The way you are interpreting it, it simply doesn't fit with the known facts. Either he is wrong, or the way you are interpreting his testimony is wrong.


That is a lie!
Berry Jennings said when he arrived at the Mayors bunker it was empty, there was a cup of coffee with steam coming out of it, and a half eaten sandwich still on the table, Berry makes us aware that everyone just left the bunker.


If you're going to quote him then quote him correctly. Jennings said...

"Upon arriving into the OAM POC, we noticed that everybody was gone... only me and Mr. Hess were up there. After I called several individuals, one individual told me to leave and leave right away. Mr. Hess came running back in and said, 'We're the only ones up here, we gotta get out of here.'"

Therefore, by the time he made it to the building, floor 23 had already had time to evacuate the building. For him to even be able to take the elevator to the 23rd floor it meant the 4,000 occupants had already finished using them to get out. This puts him there in the 45 min window between the full evacuation of the building and the collapse of WTC 1


Furthermore, when the firemen where helping Berry out of the WTC Berry talks about walking on dead bodies in the lobby so obviously the WTC was not empty as YOU claimed.


I do not know how else I can say this without resorting to baby talk...there were NO fatalities nor missing people in WTC 7. None. Not one. Not in the lobby, not on the roof, none. Therefore, there were no bodies becuase everyone had already evacuated by the time WTC 1 fell on it.

This is not my claim. The list of who died at ground zero and where is pretty comprehensive and the claim has no conflict, but, if you can somehow show how this is incorrect, then please do.


You are twisting Berry story so it fits the OS garbage, Berry said when the WTC 7 blew up he remember looking out a broken widow and BOTH WTC 1&2 WERE STILL STANDING! No debris fell on WTC7 ..NOTHING nada, zero, zilch.


No he didn't, that is coming entirely from you. His exact statement was...

"Once I broke out the windows I could see outside below me. I saw police cars on fire, buses on fire. I looked one way, the building was there, I looked the other, the building was gone. I was trapped in there for several hours. I was trapped in there when both buildings came down. "

He was referring to looking one direction, and then the other, at the side of his own building, WTC 7. WTC 1 and two were both directly to the south of WTC 7 sh he didn't need to "look one way, and then the other" to see them. He only needed to look straight ahead. Therefore, he was referring to the damage caused by the collapse of WTC 1 here. When both towers fell, he really did get trapped in there.

This interview was taken shortly after his rescue, so at best, his mind was still reeling and his thoughts were getting jumbled as he was trying to get his story out. At worst, the conspriacy people are dishonestly quote mining his words to get others to believe what they themselves want to believe, the same way they dishonestly quote mine Silverstein, Dr. Romero, Dr. Quintiere, and pretty much everyone else.

Personally, I believe that both are the case. When Jennings was telling his story he wasn't anticipated being graded on his grammer by you people.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Stay on target, Dave. This thread is not about 5, it's about 7. At what point did I deny that 7 was hit by debris, Dave? Of course 7 was hit by debris. However, I'm not the one claiming that it was burning or that it ignited the fires on 7 with a specific description of the details involved.


All right then, I'll bite- if you don't believe the fires were caused by falling debris, and if you don't believe it was any sabotage, AND you agree that WTC was whacked by falling debris from WTC , just what DO you believe caused the fires? There aren't too many more options left.

I have to presume this isn't some children's game and you're not simply arguing for argument's sake.



Stay on target, Dave. This thread is not about the Silverstein 'pull'. There's plenty of other threads based around Silverstein, try one of those.


YOU were the one who made the claim that the fires in WTC 7 "could have been contained", not me, and I gave you a source accepted by both sides of the debate that showed they were not. If you don't want to accept evidence showing that your claim is incorrect then don't ask for it.



Can you show me some recovered serial part numbers to prove the identity of the aircraft? Damn, don't you just hate it when your official story can't support itself, huh?


This is the reason why these conspiracy stories suffer in their credibility. They have no evidence or proof whatsoever to back them up so their so-called "truth seeking" proponents have to resort to cute innuendo games like this to propagate them.

What, exacly, are you implying with this statement? Don't drop innuendo. Please come out and say it.


Stay on target, Dave. None of that paragraph informs me how the fires on 7 were ignited.


Unfortutaley for you, since the administrators here aren't yanking my posts, it's a de facto judgement that my posts are in fact on target and pertinant to this topic, whether you wish to agree with the administrators or not.

You seem to forget that I am not subject to your rules of debate. You and I are subject to their rules of debate.


No, I don't simply accept 'facts' until they are substantiated and proven. That's why the official story can't support itself and it's why this thread has shown that NO ONE has been able to specifically determine how the fires were ignited on 7.


Since no theory that explains how the fires were caused actually has the unrealistically strict level of proof that you require, do I presume correctly that you think *nothing* caused the fires?



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right then, I'll bite- if you don't believe the fires were caused by falling debris, and if you don't believe it was any sabotage, AND you agree that WTC was whacked by falling debris from WTC , just what DO you believe caused the fires?

I don't know what caused the fires and I've yet to see anything that proves how they were started.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
YOU were the one who made the claim that the fires in WTC 7 "could have been contained", not me, and I gave you a source accepted by both sides of the debate that showed they were not. If you don't want to accept evidence showing that your claim is incorrect then don't ask for it.

Here's what I typed, Dave:

Originally posted by tezzajw
If the initial fires on 7 could have been contained, then why weren't they?

Note that I asked a question about if the fires could have been contained.
Note that I did not state that the fires could have been contained.

Asking a question does not imply adopting an affirmative position with the question. Perhaps the fires on 7 could not have been contained. However, if they could have been contained, then why weren't they?

It might pay you to read what I typed and understand it, before you reply.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Since no theory that explains how the fires were caused actually has the unrealistically strict level of proof that you require, do I presume correctly that you think *nothing* caused the fires?

Something caused the fires on 7. I haven't seen proof for any specific cause, just guesses and hand waving from you, NIST and a few other people in this thread.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Again you are wrong!


The way you are interpreting it, it simply doesn't fit with the known facts.
Either he is wrong, or the way you are interpreting his testimony is wrong.


I do not need to interpret the truth.


If you're going to quote him then quote him correctly. Jennings said...


I believe I did however, I do believe you have a statement that is misquoted about Michael Hess.


Mr. Hess came running back in and said, 'We're the only ones up here, we gotta get out of here.'"


Please shows were Michael Hess said we have to get out of here?


I do not know how else I can say this without resorting to baby talk...


Lets leave out the insults and stay on topic…


there were NO fatalities nor missing people in WTC 7. None. Not one. Not in the lobby, not on the roof, none. Therefore, there were no bodies becuase everyone had already evacuated by the time WTC 1 fell on it.


Obviously, you have not done your research as usual.


When they made it to the lobby, Mr. Jennings found it destroyed and littered with dead bodies. He said it looked like, “King Kong had came through it and stepped on it, (it was) so destroyed, I didn’t know where I was. So destroyed that they had to take me out through a hole in the wall, that I believe the fire department made to get me out.” Shortly after he made it out, he was seen on several news channels telling his story.


edwardrynearson.wordpress.com...



No he didn't, that is coming entirely from you. His exact statement was...

"Once I broke out the windows I could see outside below me. I saw police cars on fire, buses on fire. I looked one way, the building was there, I looked the other, the building was gone. I was trapped in there for several hours. I was trapped in there when both buildings came down. "


WRONG! That is not what he said!


Jennings and Hess then proceeded to the stairs, and made it to level 6, when there was an explosion, and the stairwell collapsed from under their feet, Mr. Jennings was actually hanging, and had to climb back up. They made it back up to level 8, where Barry Jennings had a view of the twin towers, both buildings were still standing. This is an important detail, as many debunkers have used Mr. Jennings statements out of context to claim the damage came to WTC 7 from the towers collapsing, not the case according, to Mr. Jennings.


edwardrynearson.wordpress.com...



He was referring to looking one direction, and then the other, at the side of his own building, WTC 7. WTC 1 and two were both directly to the south of WTC 7 sh he didn't need to "look one way, and then the other" to see them. He only needed to look straight ahead. Therefore, he was referring to the damage caused by the collapse of WTC 1 here. When both towers fell, he really did get trapped in there.


I would like to see your scource for this statement, thank you.


This interview was taken shortly after his rescue, so at best, his mind was still reeling and his thoughts were getting jumbled as he was trying to get his story out.


You are kidding right! How do YOU know what Barry Jennings thought are ?
What makes you the expert in “jumbled” thoughts eh?


At worst, the conspriacy people are dishonestly quote mining his words to get others to believe what they themselves want to believe, the same way they dishonestly quote mine Silverstein, Dr. Romero, Dr. Quintiere, and pretty much everyone else.


I am not dishonest, and nether are people who are looking for the truth of 911. I have yet to see a good 911 truther, spin, lie, decive, distort, any of their information, however I have seen people who believe in the OS do all of the above, because it lacks all of the evidences. I don’t have to be disinguenin to tell the truth. Don’t you agree?
I would have to say though, that was a dispicable cheap shot you took at the 911 truth movement about dishonesty.



Personally, I believe that both are the case. When Jennings was telling his story he wasn't anticipated being graded on his grammer by you people.


You people? Graded on his grammer? You are kidding right! WOW!



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Note that I asked a question about if the fires could have been contained.
Note that I did not state that the fires could have been contained.


Then why are you attempting to bicker over my answer being a Silverstein "Pull it" debate when it specifically was being used to answer your question?


Asking a question does not imply adopting an affirmative position with the question. Perhaps the fires on 7 could not have been contained. However, if they could have been contained, then why weren't they?.


Since I posted evidence from a source acceptable to both sides of the debate that the fires could not have been contained, your subsequent question is entirely moot, isn't it?


It might pay you to read what I typed and understand it, before you reply.


The only person here showing they cannot read what others type here is you. You asked whether the fires could have been contained and I showed you they couldn't. You ignored it , said it was a Silverstein "pull it" debate and then turned around and asked the question whether it could have been contained all over again.

The fires in WTC 7 could not have been contained. Get on with the topic already.


Something caused the fires on 7. I haven't seen proof for any specific cause, just guesses and hand waving from you, NIST and a few other people in this thread.


There are no "guesses or hand waving involved" here. You admitted yourself that wreckage from WTC 1 had hit WTC 7, so the theory that falling wreckage from WTC 1 instigated the fires is the most probable cause becuase a) you'll have to prove the falling wreckage *couldn't* start a fire, and b) any altternative theories would need to at have at least that much evidence to back it up, and we both know they don't.

It's one thing to be inquisitive. It's another thing entirely to be willfully pedantic.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The fires in WTC 7 could not have been contained. Get on with the topic already.

I must have missed the evidence that you presented which proves this.

The NIST report (page 60/130) states that around 11:30am, there was no water available, from the hydrant system, to fight the fires that were visible. It did not state that these fires could not have been contained. A further two hours passed while discussions were made about fighting the fires on 7.

Again, if the fires were initially fought, early on, then could they have been contained? Did the two hour talk-delay allow the fires enough time to then become uncontrolled?

Please, show me your proof that the fires on 7 could not have been contained.


There are no "guesses or hand waving involved" here. You admitted yourself that wreckage from WTC 1 had hit WTC 7, so the theory that falling wreckage from WTC 1 instigated the fires is the most probable

Most probable doesn't mean that's what actually happened. The NIST report (page 60/130) states "Most likely, the WTC 7 fires began as a result of burning debris from the collapse of WTC 1 at about 10:28:22 a.m.". That's guesswork. That's not definitive.

Again, if there were only small fires on 7 at 10:30ish, then why weren't they initially fought and contained? Sure, there was a lack of hydrant pressure, however, did they have other ways to fight some spot-fires on 7, instead of ceasing all efforts to fight it?

If the fires on 7 started at 10:30ish, then why did it take an hour, until roughly 11:30ish to discover that the was no water pressure from the hydrants?



cause becuase a) you'll have to prove the falling wreckage *couldn't* start a fire,

Your logical flaw is noted. If you claim that falling, burning debris from 1, caused the fires on 7, then you need to prove that it happened.

I'm not making that claim, or any other counter-claim, so there is no burden of proof upon me.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
I believe I did however, I do believe you have a statement that is misquoted about Michael Hess.


Jennings himself said he was with Hess, and Hess confirmed he was with Jennings. Where is the misquote?




Please shows were Michael Hess said we have to get out of here?


I cannot. That statement came from Jennings himself. Are you claiming that Jennings is wrong?



Obviously, you have not done your research as usual.


All right, look, I SAID several times already there were *no* fatalities on WTC 7, and I SAID several times the list of who died at the WTC and where they died is very comprehensive because everyone had relatives wanting to know what happened to them. If you insist on stating that people died at WTC 7 then it should be an easy matter for you to supply some names of people who died at WTC 7.

So go ahead, please prove that I'm wrong by posting a name of someone who died in WTC 7. I'm begging you to prove that I'm wrong. Just one name will do.



WRONG! That is not what he said!


Good grief, stop it already. You're *still* not quoting Jennings. You're only quoting some *other* guy trying to give his own interpretation what Jennings said.

Either quote Jennings' actual words or don't quote him at all.


I would like to see your scource for this statement, thank you.


Better yet, if you do a google search on BERRY JENNINGS TRANSCRIPT you will get links to both the transcript of his words, and the footage of his actual interview.


You are kidding right! How do YOU know what Barry Jennings thought are ?
What makes you the expert in “jumbled” thoughts eh?


As I said, Jenning's statements do not jive with the known facts nor the timetable of the events of the day, so either his mind was still reeling and he was getting his thoughts jumbled as he was trying to get his story out...which the "truthers" are in turn misquoting to make it sound the way they want to make it sound...or, Jennings is embellishing. I am giving Jennings the benefit of the doubt that he's not a liar.


I am not dishonest


I am not saying you are dishonest and I will refute any poster attempting to claim you are dishonest. I do believe your intentions are good. There is, however, a lot of bad information being circulated by the "truther" movement which is simply not true, and I will give you all the proof of this that you desire.

That's what I'm doing here- to give you a side of the story the "truthers" aren't telling you, and you can then make up your own mind who is telling the truth and who is not.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


The reason there was no fire fighting operations at WTC 7 were

The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 had cut the water mains to the area. Hoses
were run from fireboats in the Hudson River - this takes time and manpower to do

Several FDNY officers and chiefs inspected WTC 7 andfound that the building standpipe system was damaged - the stndpipes tranport water
in the building though pipes in the stairways. No standpipe = no water




Lieutenant Rudy Weindler of Ladder Company 40

"we saw a fire starting to show at windows in 7 World Trade Center, decided to go in and try and see if there was anybody in the building and/or put out the fires, and we did a search from floor to floor of 7 World Trade Center passing fire on floors 3, 7, 9. The standpipes had no water. We tried to extinguish a few fires with cans. When we got to 11, there was just too much smoke and we decided that, without water, if we went any higher, we'd be on fool's mission


No water in standpipes - Extinguish fires with "cans" - FDNY slang for 2/12 gallon hand extinguisher

The collapses had destroyed or damaged numerous pieces of fire equipment leaving the crews without tools to fight the fires




Captain Chris Boyle (Engine 94) with 18 years of service with the FDNY gave this interview:

Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
… We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.
A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I'm standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we'll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.


Standpipe systems "shot", no equipment available - gathering up rollups
(rolls of 2 1/2: diameter hose), not everyone equipped with masks, no water pressure



• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.



Men and equipment were also required for ongoing rescue operations -
removing the people trapped in the stairways of WTC 1

FDNY did make attempt to fight the fires - when the extent of damage became available and the severity of the fires combined with lack of
water the chiefs controlling the operations decided against sending men
into WTC 7. Why get men hurt or killed for a damaged empty building?



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Thanks for the info, thedman.


Originally posted by thedman
Why get men hurt or killed for a damaged empty building?

I bet that decision would have made some very rich people, very happy. Especially after those fires managed to collapse the building with freefall acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

Pull back and let it burn, huh? Easy done.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 





Pull back and let it burn, huh? Easy done.


Why get people hurt or killed for empty building?

As 2.25 seconds - collapse sequence from time mechanical penthouse
on roof begins to collapse to final gobal collapse took over 30 seconds

Have to stop watching Idiot Tube.....



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
As 2.25 seconds - collapse sequence from time mechanical penthouse
on roof begins to collapse to final gobal collapse took over 30 seconds
Have to stop watching Idiot Tube.....

You better give NIST the same advice.

I can only quote from the source. Maybe you should read the NIST report again and see what they claim those fires did. Better yet, read this thread that discusses NIST's admission of freefall acceleration.

There's no need to drag this thread off topic because we still can't be sure what ignited those fires on 7.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
If the fires on 7 started at 10:30ish, then why did it take an hour, until roughly 11:30ish to discover that the was no water pressure from the hydrants?


Now, you're just being silly. Prior to 11:30 everyone was running for their lives due to WTC 1 falling down on them. The entire area was blanketed with thick smoke and made largely unpassable by tons of debris. Not to mention, firefighters were scattered everywhere and they needed to regroup. Not to mention again, the WTC complex was gigantic, and there were already fires everywhere. Not to mention yet again, a firefighter's priority is to save the lives of people who still are in the vicinity, over putting out fires.

With some things, you're just going to have to take other people's word for it.



Your logical flaw is noted. If you claim that falling, burning debris from 1, caused the fires on 7, then you need to prove that it happened.

I'm not making that claim, or any other counter-claim, so there is no burden of proof upon me.


No, actually, there is. For most every other person, it's an established fact as well as common sense that a burning building has the ability to set neighboring buildings on fire, especially when said burning building falls onto said neighboring building. It's not a statement I or anyone else really needs to prove. For you to discount the possibility of that scenario in this case, you necessarily have to show why it *couldn't* have happened.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
There is no way, shape, or form, that this misquoting of Dr. Quintiere can be accidental. It has to be deliberate attempt at deception.


I use Dr. Quintiere as an example of two things and no more:

1. The NIST report has never been peer reviewed.

2. There are real scientists out there that refute the NIST report.

No deception.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I use Dr. Quintiere as an example of two things and no more:

1. The NIST report has never been peer reviewed.

2. There are real scientists out there that refute the NIST report.

No deception.


What is your opinion on his theory that the support beams may actually have had insufficient fireproofing to begin with? It doesn't necessarily mean there's any malice involved. It simply means that someone calculated out X when it really should have been Y. What troubles me is, if X is being used as a standard elsewhere there may well be more potential traumatic collapses like we saw at the WTC out there, waiting for the right circumstances to occur.

These conspiraciy theories are not only absurd, they are also irresponsible. Instead of looking into the serious claim there might be fatal flaws in the fireproofing standards, these conspriacies are tailor made to distract the rest of us from serious analysis of such things, and instead make us waste our time bickering over controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, or what have you.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
What is your opinion on his theory that the support beams may actually have had insufficient fireproofing to begin with? It doesn't necessarily mean there's any malice involved. It simply means that someone calculated out X when it really should have been Y. What troubles me is, if X is being used as a standard elsewhere there may well be more potential traumatic collapses like we saw at the WTC out there, waiting for the right circumstances to occur.


I can whole heartedly agree. Except, it now becomes "who is covering for whom, and why?"



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


W: Even with fires though, Building 7 cannot come down at free fall speed with no resistance. That's not a natural collapse at all. If you watch a video of its collapse, you'll notice that there's a kink at the top first. That's because the central column was blown in first, so the building would collapse inward. That's a standard demolition procedure. Go to youtube and watch it fall and you will see the kink.

Remember that Dutch demolition expert (more unbiased cause he doesn't work for the US government) said that it was definitely a professional demolition job.

Watch this irrefutable video presentation by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
Remember that Dutch demolition expert (more unbiased cause he doesn't work for the US government) said that it was definitely a professional demolition job.


Hmmm. If it's the same guy I'm thinking of, he also said that towers 1 and 2 *weren't* brought down by controlled demolitions, and that he definitely believes it came down from forces relating to the jet crash and the unique construction of the building.

SO, he is either correct on all aspects, meaningthe "controlled demolitions in the towers" bunch are all wrong, OR, he's only partially correct, meaning that if he's incorrect on one opinion, he very may well be incorrect on all opinions.

You cannot have it both ways.


Watch this irrefutable video presentation by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.


The moment Gage attempted to pass off Silverstein's "pull it" claim to us, Gage proved himself not to be an honest researcher, but simply someone who's mindlessly repeating the crap floating around on those stupid conspiracy web sites.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join