You do like to go off topic for some reason... can't imagine why.Why is it nonsense?
from an elevator mechanic in the WTC on 9.11.01:
You do like to go off topic for some reason... can't imagine why.Why is it nonsense?
from an elevator mechanic in the WTC on 9.11.01:
How is it not contradictory?How is that contradictory? Silverstein suggested they pull the firefighters out when he was told it might not be saved. looks like he verified it. I would also think that Nigro didn't make the decision on his own.
So we have 'reliable reporting'... that 7 was afire on nearly all floors, fully involved in flame, creaking and ready to fall?1) Fire Chief Frank Fellini: "So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down." (Interview, 12/3/2001)
FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco - "We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors."
FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn - "...Just went you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved with flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough,
Fire Captain Ray Goldbach: "There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured.
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. And I said, “You know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is… is pull it.” Er… and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Were these features designed to withstand the impact of jet planes at 500pmh?Elevators are equipped with several independent safety features specifically designed to prevent them from plummeting, even in the event that all the cables are cut.
?? http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Woman-drops-to-her-death-in-lift-plunge-30194663.htmlI couldn't find a single instance of a death in a plummeting elevator since 1940.
That something happened to the elevators is clear. There are several reports of explosions/balls of fire spewing from the elevator shafts in both towers. Unless the several levels of inherent safety features failed in each elevator, and in each elevator-shaft significant quantities of jet-fuel survived while burning long enough to make the hundred-floor trip down, I'd say the destruction of the elevators is more evidence of explosive involvement, unless there's a reasonable explanation for why the built-in safety-features failed. If you were to cut all the cables in any other elevator in any other building, the result, when that elevator reached ground level, would certainly not be a fiery explosion. Remember, in the video presented above with the young blond firefighter and the older black firefighter discussing the lobby-explosion they experienced, they were already in the process of assembling in the lobby with the intention of commencing a rescue. That puts them well outside the time-frame of an elevator plummeting as a result of the plane-crash severing cables.
http://www.thrnewmedia.com/adayinseptember/jones.htmWhat we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke....so it came down like a bomb, and that’s what it sounded like
That could be. I am unclear as to where they were and when. Is it possible they were massing in the lobby of one building when the other was hit and sent debris crashing into it? Their description is identical to the accounts of elevator damage in the lobbies. It highlights that there were many things that could have happened that could have been misconstrued as a "bomb".Remember, in the video presented above with the young blond firefighter and the older black firefighter discussing the lobby-explosion they experienced, they were already in the process of assembling in the lobby with the intention of commencing a rescue. That puts them well outside the time-frame of an elevator plummeting as a result of the plane-crash severing cables.
I have never personally seen any building demolished at all.That is pretty well discussed in another thread to be honest and it does seem a bit off topic.
However, I would ask if you have any examples of a steel framed high rise building which collapsed at freefall acceleration, which were not intentionally demolished or otherwise 'blown up' in some way, i.e. collapsed by fire?
Certainly I have seen discussion here in other threads why buildings did NOT collapse - however that is begging a point.But history both pre and after 9/11 shows us that fire, even far more intensive and far longer duration, results in a collapse speed of 0 feet per second, i.e. they do not collapse.
Gravity is indeed a constant and that is why what you are discussing here is freefall acceleration, not freefall speed. That there was a period of freefall acceleration in the descent of WTC 7 is not in question. Exactly why there was a period of freefall acceleration is in question, as this shows that there was absolutely no structural resistance in play at that point. 2.25 seconds of no structural resistance at all in the collapse of an absolutely massive building is a powerful reason for a forensic investigation to fully explore and eliminate the possibility of some kind of accelerant being involved.And it was not at free fall speed. Say I claim I make $100,000 dollars a year on a loan application and it turns out that I only make $70,000, can I claim that that is 'almost' 100 grand? Nope. Then why do the truthers keep claiming freefall speed for the entire collapse when it wasn't. Some things fell off at nearly free fall speed, but that is not uncommon. Gravity is a constant.
Accelerant is the description given in the "gold standard" of fire investigation manuals, NFPA 921, as in which NFPA 921 specifies should be tested for in cases of "high order damage" Thermite is specifically mentionedNow please explain how an accelerant increased the rate of collapse.
You move logically from the statement that the building was on fire to assume what you seem to think is the obvious conclusion that it must inevitably have been utterly and totally destroyed in a matter of seconds exactly how?The buildings caught on fire because they were hit by pieces of a flaming building. No accelerant needed for that.
Appeal to incredulity. This should have been a forensic investigation. The best forensic fire investigation protocol in the US, accepted by courts throughout the nation, does not quibble on imagined technicalities in a case like this. It is clear and unequivocal that accelerants should be tested for if damage is severe.So you are saying that it was thermite that took it down. That dog don't hunt, buddy. It would have taken a large amount of thermite to do it, and since it doesn't like to cut through a vertical surface, some method would have had to be devised to keep it in place long enough.
Here we go with the arbitrary and conclusion-assuming metaphors again. You don't construct a logical argument out of conclusion-assuming metaphors I'm afraid and you certainly can't assume that fire will inevitably bring a massive building straight down in a matter of seconds.The police dept doesn't do a DNA study of some equine dung at a crime scene to see if the criminal escaped on a zebra or a unicorn.
And now the bare assertion fallacy. I didn't bring up thermite specifically, I mentioned it in reference to NFPA 921 which Chief Nigro of all people would have reason to expect NIST to have followed as a bare minimum of its investigative process. But NIST let him down.You were the person that brought up thermite as the cause. Thermite is NOT used for this purpose because it is not suitable.
This statement makes no sense, coming from you. It is most applicable in support of my position: just because you can't understand how accelerants might be applied in a case like this doesn't mean that experts can't.Just because you can't understand how it could, doesn't mean that the experts and others can't.
Nonsense. The point is made. Chief Nigro would doubtless have expected NIST to have followed the NFPA 921 code at an absolute minimum when he made his statement at the start of this thread. NFPA 921 is clear and unequivocal in demanding testing for accelerants in the event of high-order damage, and mentions thermite as an example of an accelerant you asked to be defined.You can stop the silliness. You brought it up. To assert that mentioning didn't mean you thought that was the cause of the collapse, is only fooling you.
Of course not. Freefall has been an issue from the start, although it took David Chandler to force NIST to acknowledge it and expose the risible sleight of hand it undertook with its collapse timings to try to obfuscate the fact (youtube link provided here for anyone that has a computer that was built this century):So you have 'discovered' something that NO ONE else has noticed. Sorry if I don't consider that any evidence.
I'll take that as an admission of defeat on your part.I am not the only person that can debunk it. Why are you acting like I am? Convince Mick or Jazzy that your 'evidence' is correct, and then I will discuss it. Until then, you can talk to someone else.
Freefall has never been an issue except for truthers. There's nothing at all unreasonable with the exterior of the building collapsing at essentially free fall acceleration. It's basically what you would expect if the interior of the building collapsed first, and then the exterior buckled over several floors.Of course not. Freefall has been an issue from the start, although it took David Chandler to force NIST to acknowledge it and expose the risible sleight of hand it undertook with its collapse timings to try to obfuscate the fact (youtube link provided here for anyone that has a computer that was built this century):
I'll take that as an admission of defeat on your part.
Why don't you join me, Cairenn, in calling for Chief Nigro's expectations of NIST's WTC 7 investigation to be fulfilled by a new investigation that follows rather than ignores the clearly defined and forensically necessary requirements of the NFPA 921 code that he probably knows by heart?
The thing is, I addressed that NIST NFPA passage months ago. If it wasn't constantly pasted in as if it still offers answers then maybe my responses to it would appear less repetitive.Freefall has never been an issue except for truthers. There's nothing at all unreasonable with the exterior of the building collapsing at essentially free fall acceleration. It's basically what you would expect if the interior of the building collapsed first, and then the exterior buckled over several floors.
And we know you don't think the investigation was good enough. Unfortunately it seems nobody with any real experience in the matter agrees with you. NIST explained why they did what they did:
And it has been discussed several times here. I have asked you to not repeatedly bring up the same topic again and again. So please do not do so.
In point of fact I have already pointed out the myriad flaws of reasoning in NIST's justification for not following NFPA 921 months ago (unfortunately somewhat edited by a moderator recently).Sounds like Mick had debunked your 'theory' to me. Repeating the same thing won't change the FACTS. The truth and the facts and the science is not on your side.
Believe it or not, I have a life, family, job, and some very serious concerns to address at the moment. Amusing myself with the denizens of this forum is a kind of distraction from them for me, but I can't have fun 24/7. Don't worry, I'll start the thread when I've had time to analyse the text from NIST you copied-and-pasted point by point (as I said, I have analysed much of it already and that was just ignored).And I thought you were going to start a thread explaining why free-fall was impossible in WTC7?
Of course, you locked that thread weeks ago.Anyway, if you have something to add, take it up in your thread.
Your own excerpt would argue with you.Elevators are designed to not allow doors to open unless there is an elevator in place. The planes CUT all the cables, the fail safes are not designed to handle that.
Seems as if the safety features are specifically designed for the event of all cables being cut, as was stated in the link I posted.A 2009 report by Occupational Health & Safety attributes the rarity of elevator fatalities to "intricate, redundant, and regulated safety features built into every elevator." Elevators typically have four to eight times as many cables holding them up than they actually need, and they also have automatic braking systems near the top and bottom of the shaft, backed up by electromagnetic brakes. Finally, "at the bottom of the shaft is a heavy-duty shock absorber system designed to save passengers if all else fails," the report stated.
Can you explain how a plane impact on the uppermost floors of the buildings would plausibly disable every braking system and render the shock-absorber so entirely ineffective as to not only kill the occupants, but also result in large and fiery explosions which decimated the lobbies/basement levels?Were these features designed to withstand the impact of jet planes at 500pmh?
I'm not disregarding what this guy has to say, or calling him a liar. But what he has to say isn't nearly so 'smoking-gun' as you imply. He describes hearing a sound, likely elevators on a fast descent, he describes an explosion afterward that wrecked the lobby. That's his personal experience, and I believe it. None the less, you can't present his explanation of that explosion being the result of the elevators explosively hitting the bottom floor as some sort of professional assessment he gained at the time through his experience as an elevator technician. He makes it pretty clear he didn't know what he was hearing or why the lobby blew up. He states he was told what had happened later. The explanation he presents is one he was given and accepts, not the independent conclusion of an expert on the scene or something.You have the man in charge of the elevators in question, there on scene, describing what happened...and yet somehow you disregard it. Just to clarify- you do not believe this guy for whatever reason?
We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.
I’m looking from the lobby up to a mezzanine area or the second floor where they lined up all the people to go up to the rooftop, and I’m looking up expecting something, building parts to be coming down, because I wasn’t quite sure what that noise was.
But I found out later, when the plane came through the building, it cut the hoist ropes, the governor ropes, of (the) 6 and 7 cars, which was the observation cars.
Every night they would park those two cars up on the 107th floor. At the time the plane impacted B Tower, the observation deck wasn’t open yet, which was another life-saving factor. At the time it impacted the building, they hadn’t opened the observation deck.
Had they, there would’ve been many, maybe another 1,000, 2,000 people on the rooftop, because it was a clear day. It was a beautiful day.
What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.
So jet-fuel, acting as the powder in a musket, blasted the elevators from top to bottom, chasing them with a fiery wall of pressure down 90 floors?If an falling elevator was being followed by a blast of burning jet fuel- there would be a fiery explosion.
I'd settle for the release of the complete datafiles of the NIST "simulation" at this point. I don't think there's a single "debunker" on this site who can defend the "public safety" argument for classifying that information and maintain a veneer of independent thought or credibility. I know Jazzy has, but I think gerrycan showed him just how mistaken his dogmatic defences of the NIST report have been.Jomper, you know there's not going to be another investigation of WTC7.
Ah, so you accept that there is physical evidence from WTC7 that NIST could have examined? Perhaps you would argue that physical evidence is not relevant to a forensic investigation for some reason? Would you accept that physical evidence is critical in forensic investigations in general, or can you point to another forensic investigation that came to credible conclusions without examining any physical evidence at all?Certainly not one with more physical evidence from WTC7 examined.
I'm fascinated by disingenuous "debunkers". For example, I recently asked: what is the actual substance of NIST's excuse for not following the NFPA921 code in the case of WTC7? NFPA921 makes it clear what following the scientific method in fire investigation actually means and quite obviously it means testing for accelerants in the event of high order damage. NIST's stated "reasoning" for not doing so is meaningless, wouldn't you agree?So what is your goal here?
I haven't ignored the answers: I've pointed out how hollow they are. That's quite different. NIST may say it has followed the scientific method in investigating WTC7 but this does not in fact make it so. If I point this out, what I get is endless copy-and-pastes of NIST's claim to have followed the scientific method. And this from people who claim to have reason on their side. As I say, it's fascinating.You've already stated your point literally hundreds of times, and ignored the answers given an equal number of times.
That's an absurd metaphor: NIST's "reasoning" for abandoning the NFPA921 code in the case of WTC7 is rendered in plain (if meaningless) English, and plain expression rather than shaky metaphor is the medium of rational discussion.Well don't bother calling the electrician, mechanic or plumber, cuz you can 'think for yourself'.