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

[Oxymoron]

Paltry fires? Were you inside?

Reading that is quite nauseating.

Content from External Source

[...] Paltry fires in the corner?

Pointless responding to Lee... he has been banned since 8th Aug although I have never seen him be any more impolite than a lot of debunkers on here, (and far less so than many). Mynym is also banned as is Alchemist. Grieves seems to have gotten fed up with being abused and appears to have stopped posting so there are not many dissenters from the official view on here now. Have to laugh how you all complain about getting banned off CT sites and think it's fine to ban anyone who disagrees on here for minor infractions whilst major infractions by debunkers are uncriticised.

 

[Mick West]

Click on the report button under a post if you think it violates the politeness policy. That's the procedure.

The people who get banned generally have the offending posts removed, so you don't see why they get banned. Like I banned Jazzy for a day yesterday, and deleted his post.

People now also get banned for repeated violations of the posting guidelines.

 

[Landru]

Ohh really? Care to explain these differences?
And I don't mean the differences in the building structures.

WTC1&2 had a plane fly into them. WTC7 did not.

 

[Marcus Mudd]

WTC1&2 had a plane fly into them. WTC7 did not.

yet they both suffered the same fate, this should indicate that something is wrong and to most people it does

 

[Mick West]

yet they both suffered the same fate, this should indicate that something is wrong and to most people it does

The point is that you can't apply the exact same arguments to WTC7 as you can to WTC1/2. They are vastly different situations.

 

[Marcus Mudd]

The point is that you can't apply the exact same arguments to WTC7 as you can to WTC1/2. They are vastly different situations.

I disagree

 

[Mick West]

I disagree

That's hardly relevant, is it? The question would be if two fireman should have been able to assess the true state of the fires in WTC2 from a stairwell in the 78th floor because hours of observation of WTC7 led to the conclusion that it was likely to collapse.

 

[Marcus Mudd]

That's hardly relevant, is it? The question would be if two fireman should have been able to assess the true state of the fires in WTC2 from a stairwell in the 78th floor because hours of observation of WTC7 led to the conclusion that it was likely to collapse.

I accept the on the ground expert analysis that oxymoron posted. In my opinion this matter is validated as sufficient evidence for the claim of inconsitancy of the official report and unofficial expert testimony has been submitted.

 

[Mick West]

The NIST report is internally consistent. You can always find a witness who disagrees with something. That's why eyewitness testimony is generally considered unreliable.

 

[Marcus Mudd]

Based on these glaring inconsitancies, further investigation into the true nature of the collapse of all three buildings is not only warrented, but absolutely neccessary

 

[Mick West]

Based on these glaring inconsitancies, further investigation into the true nature of the collapse of all three buildings is not only warrented, but absolutely neccessary

What inconsistencies? Eyewitness disagreeing with each other? That has happened in every large incident in the history of the world.

 

[Bmead]

Facts please. Not opinions. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pr...two-isolated-pockets-of-fire.2079/#post-57401
Then explain how they would assess the situation from the 78th floor.

In so much as you call for facts only, then i am disappointed at the deletion of my introductory post. Being as it did, contain FACTS. Whereas there is much on here that contains opinion. I have a strange feeling this may be a place where opinion that debunks is fine otherwise not. It is a fact that Controlled demolition is of equal validity as any other theory, i say theory because the total collapse have never been fully explained and rest at collapse initiation. So using a fact WTC 7 LOOKS like controlled demolition, supported by the newsreaders on the day, the witnesses in and around the building. And the very well documented fact, that never ever ever, has a fire created a symetrical collapse. And yes we know the building twisted a bit and there was damage, we also know, this happens in CD a provable fact through observation. So indeed then, let JUST facts speak, then if the very facts dont add up, and you are left with questions when too many are left, conspiracies abound.
That is fact not opinion

 

[Mick West]

In so much as you call for facts only, then i am disappointed at the deletion of my introductory post. Being as it did, contain FACTS. Whereas there is much on here that contains opinion. I have a strange feeling this may be a place where opinion that debunks is fine otherwise not. It is a fact that Controlled demolition is of equal validity as any other theory, i say theory because the total collapse have never been fully explained and rest at collapse initiation. So using a fact WTC 7 LOOKS like controlled demolition, supported by the newsreaders on the day, the witnesses in and around the building. And the very well documented fact, that never ever ever, has a fire created a symetrical collapse. And yes we know the building twisted a bit and there was damage, we also know, this happens in CD a provable fact through observation. So indeed then, let JUST facts speak, then if the very facts dont add up, and you are left with questions when too many are left, conspiracies abound.
That is fact not opinion

What things look like is not always what they are. And that's a fact.

But this is off topic. Please review the posting guidelines.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

 

[JRBids]

Pointless responding to Lee... he has been banned since 8th Aug although I have never seen him be any more impolite than a lot of debunkers on here, (and far less so than many). Mynym is also banned as is Alchemist. Grieves seems to have gotten fed up with being abused and appears to have stopped posting so there are not many dissenters from the official view on here now. Have to laugh how you all complain about getting banned off CT sites and think it's fine to ban anyone who disagrees on here for minor infractions whilst major infractions by debunkers are uncriticised.

Thank you I did not realize the posts were old. For some reason they showed as "new" on my feed.

 

[Dan Wilson]

Ohh really? Care to explain these differences?
And I don't mean the differences in the building structures.

WTC2 was hit by a plane and collapsed relatively shortly after, with a haze of adrenaline, confusion, and panic preceding the collapse. WTC7 burned almost all day, with multiple authorities keeping eyes on it and making more calm and thorough assessments of its conditions.

In relevance to the original post and the idea of NIST and these firefighters being at odds, photographic evidence does show more fires than described in the radio conversation. Furthermore, floors close the fire don't necessarily have to be in poor condition in the scenario of a progressive collapse. Only one floor's trusses had to fail in order to release the unstoppable weight above it.

 

[Ron J]

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'.



As for SF's post



See above and also:


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.

There is photography of at least one sagging truss, seen through the windows of WTC2. I also recall way back when, that someone on a phone, trapped inside WTC1, supposedly said that floors were collapsing.

 

[Ron J]

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?

Where Edna was standing, what was there left to burn? The jetliner had crashed through there, taking everything with it.

Fires were severe on the impact floors/collapse initiation points. Where the North Tower began its collapse, there was a huge whoosh of flame out the windows along a good portion of that floor along the north wall.

How are floor to ceiling flames not that severe? Because they were not on every single inch of a single floor at the same time?

The fireball erupted out all four sides, as well as the gash Edna was later standing in. How hot was the fireball? How did Edna survive it? I would guess she was in an enclosed office that the fireball didn't get into.

 

[Oxymoron]

Where Edna was standing, what was there left to burn? The jetliner had crashed through there, taking everything with it.

Fires were severe on the impact floors/collapse initiation points. Where the North Tower began its collapse, there was a huge whoosh of flame out the windows along a good portion of that floor along the north wall.

How are floor to ceiling flames not that severe? Because they were not on every single inch of a single floor at the same time?

The fireball erupted out all four sides, as well as the gash Edna was later standing in. How hot was the fireball? How did Edna survive it? I would guess she was in an enclosed office that the fireball didn't get into.

AFAIK it was pretty much open plan and any dividers would have been insubstantial although Edna Cintron worked for Marsh & McLennan who had a "large walled data center along north and east sides," according to the NIST report. And that's exactly where the plane hit – the north wall of the 95th floor.

But Edna was not the only person there, there was an unidentified male as well, although he was not as visible as Edna.

So that puts Edna as surviving not only the impact and fireball but also the fire. Obviously it was incredibly amazing that she survived the impact fireball and fire as she did.