Professional Witnesses Disagree With NIST i.e. Ladder 15 we've got two isolated pockets of fire.

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Professional witnesses disagree with NIST's assessment of conditions, (upon which they based their findings).

How can there be such massive disparity between experienced people in situ and subsequent hypothesis of why the tower collapsed?

NIST's assessment of the temperatures in the Tower, (500 to 600 degrees C) just prior to collapse cannot be accurate as it would be impossible for Ladder 15 to be where they said they were.

http://www.wireonfire.com/donpaul/wit/23TranscriptFDNYfirefightertheSouthTower.pdf

http://www.nyfd.com/radio.html

How are these discrepancies reconciled?
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Clearly though there was NOT just "two isolated pockets" of fire. One just has to look at the photos of the exterior to see that. The firemen could only see what they had access to.

Have a look at the spread of the fires. South tower (WTC2) is on the left here. You can see the fires spreading across multiple floors just before the collapse.

 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Where is NIST's assessment of conditions for that location?
Here are some more accounts of the conditions.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usat-escape.htm

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not seeing the discrepancy here. Clearly the firemen were not right next to the main fires. They could not see the entire building around and above them.

I know this has been discussed on the internet many times. The answers are out there. One of the failings of the skeptical movement is that the answers are not that easy to find. That's something I'm working on.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I'm not seeing the discrepancy here. Clearly the firemen were not right next to the main fires. They could not see the entire building around and above them.

I know this has been discussed on the internet many times. The answers are out there. One of the failings of the skeptical movement is that the answers are not that easy to find. That's something I'm working on.
I think it quite an important issue Mick. There are many discrepancies between TPTB accounts and witness accounts and visual evidence.

In order for the official account to be accurate, the anomalies need to be reconciled.

WTC 1 'Fires weakened steel resulting in unprecedented straight down total collapse, (as a natural consequence). And yet the fires are visually 'not that severe' at the impact floors/collapse initiation points. Edna Cintron is seen waving from the gash in 1 for nearly an hour. How hot could it be?

WTC 2 Ditto re steel weakened but impact was only on one corner which implies little damage to core. People evacuate down through the the worst affected floors/collapse initiation floors and firefighters, (who have come up through the the entire height of the building) describe the fires as 'isolated pockets of fire'.

WTC 7 Described as 'bulging out at the side' and 'totally engaged in fire' is evidently 'from visual evidence' only subject to relatively small office fires on some floors.

People then wonder why other people ask questions.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Let's keep it on topic. What is the actual discrepancy with Palmer and Bucca here?

It seems most likely that when they said "two isolated pockets of fire" they were just referring to what they could see.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Let's keep it on topic. What is the actual discrepancy with Palmer and Bucca here?

It seems most likely that when they said "two isolated pockets of fire" they were just referring to what they could see.
But they are experienced firefighters. They would not 'open a door, see no fire' and report back 'everyone go home there is no problem here'. No, they would take in the whole situation and and do a proper assessment.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But they are experienced firefighters. They would not 'open a door, see no fire' and report back 'everyone go home there is no problem here'. No, they would take in the whole situation and and do a proper assessment.
Oh, well clearly it was a controlled demolition then.

Or maybe they just did not see all the fire? Because they could not get to it?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Here are some more accounts of the conditions.



http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

Reading that is quite nauseating. Those people are no more qualified to judge than you or I, O, are they? I mean, making statements like 'WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns', which is pure bullshit coming from an organisation that never did a proper forensic examination of the physical evidence. And even if a corner column of a tower was completely severed it would make virtually no difference to the structure because the loads would be redistributed through the bracing, by design.

Those firefighter transcripts you posted above, O, are testament to the professional dedication of those men. I've heard tape, but written down it's somehow filled with even more meaning. Honesty has a way of being seen, thanks O.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
They were on the 78th floor:








Three out of five showing the corner that pissed molten metal (penultimate one has some) - and paltry fires in the context of the structure - and just before it all 'collapsed' (meaning, 'peeled itself like a dust and steel banana').
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But considerably more than isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor. In fact most of the fire seems to be above the 80th floor, which they would not have seen. Hence the premise of this thread is debunked.
.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
But considerably more than isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor. In fact most of the fire seems to be above the 80th floor, which they would not have seen. Hence the premise of this thread is debunked.
.
Well that would be a nice argument. But it would be a lot more solid if when they say:
...the response was something along the lines of:

'Negative, you are only seeing the small picture, we see raging fires above you and we are concerned the building will collapse... get back down asap'. But it wasn't.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
"An expert witness, professional witness or judicial expert is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially and legally rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of his expertise, referred to as the expert opinion, as an assistance to the fact-finder."
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
So they had specialized knowledge of the extent of fire throughout the whole building? Or they used their professional knowledge and experience to evaluate the situation they could see directly?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
So they had specialized knowledge of the extent of fire throughout the whole building? Or they used their professional knowledge and experience to evaluate the situation they could see directly?
The latter. What I believe oxy is getting at is their evaluation gave no indication whatsoever that the building was in any danger of collapsing.
They were on the 78th floor, only a few floors below the most intensely damaged levels where visible flames were at their highest, and were in radio-contact moments before the wholesale collapse of the entire structure. If that collapse was indeed the result of slow and progressive weakening of the structure throughout the course of the fire, one would expect apparent evidence of that impending collapse so close to it's source. While the lack of more gradual external warping of the structure prior to collapse can perhaps be explained, can the lack of internal evidence be so easily dismissed? Six minutes prior to the collapse, these highly trained men voiced no indication that a collapse was due, or even a concern. Wouldn't massive structural beams be rather noisy as they gradually succumb to tremendous presssures?
 
The latter. What I believe oxy is getting at is their evaluation gave no indication whatsoever that the building was in any danger of collapsing.
They were on the 78th floor, only a few floors below the most intensely damaged levels where visible flames were at their highest, and were in radio-contact moments before the wholesale collapse of the entire structure. If that collapse was indeed the result of slow and progressive weakening of the structure throughout the course of the fire, one would expect apparent evidence of that impending collapse so close to it's source.
But considerably more than isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor. In fact most of the fire seems to be above the 80th floor, which they would not have seen. Hence the premise of this thread is debunked.
.
Very few people made it from above the impact point down through the fires to safety.
Both because of structural damage and the intensity of the fire and smoke.
I believe it only happenend in one of the buildings.

Judging the fire from floors below doesn't really cut it.
These were very hot and intense fires.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The latter. What I believe oxy is getting at is their evaluation gave no indication whatsoever that the building was in any danger of collapsing.
They were on the 78th floor, only a few floors below the most intensely damaged levels where visible flames were at their highest, and were in radio-contact moments before the wholesale collapse of the entire structure. If that collapse was indeed the result of slow and progressive weakening of the structure throughout the course of the fire, one would expect apparent evidence of that impending collapse so close to it's source. While the lack of more gradual external warping of the structure prior to collapse can perhaps be explained, can the lack of internal evidence be so easily dismissed? Six minutes prior to the collapse, these highly trained men voiced no indication that a collapse was due, or even a concern. Wouldn't massive structural beams be rather noisy as they gradually succumb to tremendous presssures?
That makes no sense. If the fires are above them, why would they see evidence of damage two floors below the fires?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I'm not speaking of the fires, I'm speaking of the structural integrity of the building. The official account suggests the core columns of the building were gradually compromised by the fires, leading to eventual collapse. That the structural steel was weakened over time, and in the end gave way. If massive steel columns running through the entire building were getting progressively closer and closer to failure, wouldn't there be some indication of that throughout the structure, especially in close proximity to the worst affected floors? Wouldn't there be quite a bit of noise/vibration long before the columns actually gave way? Metal makes noise when under extreme stress, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
If massive steel columns running through the entire building were getting progressively closer and closer to failure, wouldn't there be some indication of that throughout the structure, especially in close proximity to the worst affected floors?
I wouldn't necessarily think so.
I don't think the firefighters got close enough to see the real damage. No one could. It would have been too hot.
But if they were able to be on a floor then damage wouldn't have been necessarily readily apparent. The temperature wasn't hot enough.

Wouldn't there be quite a bit of noise/vibration long before the columns actually gave way?
I would imagine there was a tremendous amount of noise there. Between the fires and people trying to yell to be heard at times.
In the utter confusion of it all I doubt they knew the columns were collapsing much before they did.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The latter. What I believe oxy is getting at is their evaluation gave no indication whatsoever that the building was in any danger of collapsing.
They were on the 78th floor, only a few floors below the most intensely damaged levels where visible flames were at their highest, and were in radio-contact moments before the wholesale collapse of the entire structure. If that collapse was indeed the result of slow and progressive weakening of the structure throughout the course of the fire, one would expect apparent evidence of that impending collapse so close to it's source. While the lack of more gradual external warping of the structure prior to collapse can perhaps be explained, can the lack of internal evidence be so easily dismissed? Six minutes prior to the collapse, these highly trained men voiced no indication that a collapse was due, or even a concern. Wouldn't massive structural beams be rather noisy as they gradually succumb to tremendous presssures?
Grieves has very nicely summed up my position on this. Thanks. I would also add, as apparently I did not make it clear in the earlier post, that firefighters were in radio contact with their colleagues, who had a broader observation platform and at no time did they say 'Ladder 15 get the hell out of there the building is going to collapse, you are too low down to see the carnage that is taking place above you'.

Well that would be a nice argument. But it would be a lot more solid if when they say:
...the response was something along the lines of:

'Negative, you are only seeing the small picture, we see raging fires above you and we are concerned the building will collapse... get back down asap'. But it wasn't.
As for SF's post

Very few people made it from above the impact point down through the fires to safety.
Both because of structural damage and the intensity of the fire and smoke.
I believe it only happenend in one of the buildings.

Judging the fire from floors below doesn't really cut it.
These were very hot and intense fires.
See above and also:

Content from external source
Only four people survived above the 78th floor in the south tower. They did it by acting against the advice of others and going down the stairs through smoke and debris. Dozens more, possibly hundreds, could have taken the same path to safety. Instead, they went up in search of a helicopter rescue that would never come.
Smoke and debris is not raging fires at extreme temps. Add to that that the building was open plan thereby giving a good view of each floor, not just a room.

Jazzy has made much in the past of 'floors collapsing' prior to the collapse. There has been no evidence to substantiate this claim although he has claimed to have seen pictures.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Slightly off topic but still pertinent.

Do you place the same weight of authority to all the firemen's evaluation that WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing?


https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
From video comments

And your link is to wtc 7 and the comments are from people with vested interests in 'authority versions of events'.

Lets look at some
ROFLMAO... Where TF is his photo's to support this claim... 'Oh the dog ate my camera boss... sorry I couldn't get any pics but I made a statement'. :rolleyes:



Oh yeah... well fuck my boots... look at those crazy flames the whole building is a giant blazing inferno. I just can't believe I have never seen it before. Thanks SR, you have changed my life. :rolleyes: I have a far better understanding of 'confirmation bias' now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SR1419

Senior Member.
So, let me get this straight...you think that because a firefighter - standing in a stairwell in the corner of the lowest floor of the impact zone- reported 2 isolated pockets of fire- that is somehow evidence of an inside job??

Apparently the fires were intense and widespread enough that approximately 200 people felt compelled to jump to their deaths rather than face the fire:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ca-wants-forget-victims-fell-Twin-Towers.html

Here is an eyewitness who was helped by the firefighters in question:

http://webdoc.nyumc.org/nyumc/files/communications/u3/patient-stories.pdf


Jazzy has made much in the past of 'floors collapsing' prior to the collapse. There has been no evidence to substantiate this claim although he has claimed to have seen pictures.
http://www.fireengineering.com/arti...d-trade-center-disaster-initial-response.html

I think it obvious that the firefighters in question had a limited view of what was going on at the time and only in hindsight can we say for certain that the fires in the South tower were not isolated or small pockets.

WTC_on_fire9.jpg
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Oh yeah... well fuck my boots... look at those crazy flames the whole building is a giant blazing inferno. I just can't believe I have never seen it before. Thanks SR, you have changed my life. :rolleyes: I have a far better understanding of 'confirmation bias' now.
So, a quote from a fireman that supports your belief despite visual evidence to the contrary is acceptable- but a quote from a photographer which you include with an out of context picture is somehow proof of an inside job...


...and somehow taking a random internet users comment from a Youtube video is supposedly a definitive answer as to which building the fireman is referring? Really Oxy? is that all you got - youtube comments?? Any possible evidence contrary to your beliefs just gets waved away with youtube comments and desperate sarcasm. Classic OxyMoron.

As for your boots- its probably best if you keep your proclivities to yourself.


https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage


 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So, a quote from a fireman that supports your belief despite visual evidence to the contrary is acceptable- but a quote from a photographer which you include with an out of context picture is somehow proof of an inside job...


...and somehow taking a random internet users comment from a Youtube video is supposedly a definitive answer as to which building the fireman is referring? Really Oxy? is that all you got - youtube comments?? Any possible evidence contrary to your beliefs just gets waved away with youtube comments and desperate sarcasm. Classic OxyMoron.
Yep sorry about that. I guess it is 'typical Oxy' to use 'an out of context picture', I think you should supply some more 'in context ones' just to show how bad I am.

Let us not forget what you are validating though:

Content from external source

"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak
Content from external source
"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild.
Are you saying the YT commenter is wrong in their assertion. What do you base that on?

'YouTube video's', 'YouTube comments', what is the difference in validity?

AFAIK, they are simply pictures/movie clips vs written. Many YouTube commenters actually post videos. Should Mick take all his videos and comments off of YouTube? What is the difference between commenting here on a forum and YouTube?

SR
So, let me get this straight...you think that because a firefighter - standing in a stairwell in the corner of the lowest floor of the impact zone- reported 2 isolated pockets of fire- that is somehow evidence of an inside job??
Please refer to OP. No one single anomaly proves 'an inside job' but each one adds up. You are aware of the new posting rules on this site are you? i.e. a refinement of the old rules, 'focus on specific points one at a time'.

See when a Jury considers a verdict, they take all the evidence covered in the trial and evaluate it all in context... 'the big picture'. Like I say, this anomaly does not of itself prove an inside job but I still retain the wider issues whilst I evaluate these micro issues.
 
Last edited:

SR1419

Senior Member.
See when a Jury considers a verdict, they take all the evidence covered in the trial and evaluate it all in context... 'the big picture'. Like I say, this anomaly does not of itself prove an inside job but I still retain the wider issues whilst I evaluate these micro issues.
We know for a fact that this small anecdote does not represent the "big" picture of the extent of the fires. So, why bring it up? Its misdirection
 

Bmead

Member
But considerably more than isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor. In fact most of the fire seems to be above the 80th floor, which they would not have seen. Hence the premise of this thread is debunked.
.
Not really, the images given provide a clear point that the fires are not outrageously searing infernos, they are relatively limited. Additionally, there should be some idea of imminent collapse, groaning and cracking of steel and concrete. Sound, and heat, smoke, and damage would also be an indicator of further fires. It is always the case that people say, DEBUNKED. Then sweep it away. You are of course, correct that they report what they see only. But then that is true of your point, and what you and i see is odd in itself, fires that have sustained from the moment of impact, when any fuel would long be burnt out, when any fuel to sustain in the context of carpets or furnishings would be almost depleted. If you have a bonfire, then is the heat equal at the start, as to when 3/4 of it is burnt? No. The point is not in the least debunked. If you take the firemens statements and all visual evidence, any other statements from any phonecalls and living witnesses, then you can build a floor by floor detailed analysis. This is not something ever done.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Here are some more accounts of the conditions.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usat-escape.htm


If only everyone trapped or looking for an exit in the smoke knew that if only theygone THROUGH the smoke and debris, that was the way out. How could they?

And yet, after the first attack, people were told to just stay at their desks, everything was secure. Watching on TV, living in NY, formerly working in NYC, I had to insert myself and wonder if I were working in the WTC would I be alive. Would I stay at my desk. How would I know? Would listen to the announcements, would I go through smoke or try to find another way out. Life if not a movie where the stars manage to lead the survivors through a tortuous route to safety.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Three out of five showing the corner that pissed molten metal (penultimate one has some) - and paltry fires in the context of the structure - and just before it all 'collapsed' (meaning, 'peeled itself like a dust and steel banana').

Paltry fires? Were you inside?

[...] Paltry fires in the corner?

[Admin: Politeness Edits]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Marcus Mudd

Member
It seems obvious to anyone not a staff member or senior member of the site that there are glaring discrepancies and this is not debunked
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
You know, the thing that really bothers me with debunkers on this...when we were talking about the topic of how they knew building 7 would collapse hours before it did, of course everyone is an expert and can make that judgement without knowing what's going on in the building. But now when there's discrepancy on what was actually going on in the building, with people who were actually in the building, suddenly the position changes to 'ohh well how would they know what's going on or the extent of the damage etc.'
Pick a side debunkers.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You know, the thing that really bothers me with debunkers on this...when we were talking about the topic of how they knew building 7 would collapse hours before it did, of course everyone is an expert and can make that judgement without knowing what's going on in the building. But now when there's discrepancy on what was actually going on in the building, with people who were actually in the building, suddenly the position changes to 'ohh well how would they know what's going on or the extent of the damage etc.'
Pick a side debunkers.
WTC7 was very different from WTC1/2, in many ways. You can't blindly apply the same analysis to both situations.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
WTC7 was very different from WTC1/2, in many ways. You can't blindly apply the same analysis to both situations.
Ohh really? Care to explain these differences?
And I don't mean the differences in the building structures.
 
Last edited:
Top