Mendel
Senior Member.
I don't because I didn't use it and you didn't use it in the part I quoted. You're introducing it as distraction instead of making your claim clear.You don't seem to register the word "immediate".
I don't because I didn't use it and you didn't use it in the part I quoted. You're introducing it as distraction instead of making your claim clear.You don't seem to register the word "immediate".
Great. Another small step forward. BUT we have a long way to go to address the implications of "Achilles' Heel"But we agree that they thought the building could collapse, right? In fact, they were worried that it might very well collapse. That's certainly my understanding.
It's like you approach discussion as chess and you're questioning something I did 10 moves back. I don't think we're going to resolve this if you won't grant that I distinguish between the resources they had immediately at their disposal (i.e., not many) and those they could have urgently devoted themselves to acquiring (e.g., in the Hudson).I don't because I didn't use it and you didn't use it in the part I quoted. You're introducing it as distraction instead of making your claim clear.
1) The FDNY had the means to extinguish the fires in WTC7
So, yes, they did have the means to get water to the site.
I've already explained that (1) doesn't state my view.
I'm curious now. Can you tell me where you got the impression that I thought they thought the building couldn't collapse? If I've ever believed that, it was many, many years ago, so I'd be surprised to find I said something along those lines in this thread.Great. Another small step forward.
What knowledge Thomas B?In my view, they had neither the immediate means nor the knowledge needed to prevent the collapse.
he'll say they were worried for the wrong reasons [edit: in fact, he did as I was writing this post]Great. Another small step forward. BUT we have a long way to go to address the implications of "Achilles' Heel"
yep, you say NO to "immediate" and YES overall. I'm not interested in "immediate", I'm interested in your YES because that is the claim that needs evidence, and that your second claim rests on.It's like you approach discussion as chess and you're questioning something I did 10 moves back. I don't think we're going to resolve this if you won't grant that I distinguish between the resources they had immediately at their disposal (i.e., not many) and those they could have urgently devoted themselves to acquiring (e.g., in the Hudson).
it's necessary because you approach this as running in circlesIt's like you approach discussion as chess and you're questioning something I did 10 moves back
NIST never said that. This is the lie at the heart of this idiotic thread. You keep taking NIST's statement that, "[t]he collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires," out of context and clinging to that misrepresentation, in true thinly-veiled truther fashion, like a dog with a bone.I'm not sure what else I can tell you other than that NIST says that before 9/11 firefighters didn't expect fires in skyscrapers to cause total progressive collapse.
1) The FDNY had the means to extinguish the fires in WTC7
So, yes, they did have the means to get water to the site.
I've already explained that (1) doesn't state my view.
This is complete baloney.I'm not sure what else I can tell you other than that NIST says that before 9/11 firefighters didn't expect fires in skyscrapers to cause total progressive collapse.
I guess we could "speculate". But why not just take this exactly for what it's worth. They were worried about local, not global collapse. And if three floors collapse somewhere up in the building, you do not want to be in the lobby.Why do you think they didn't just wait downstairs in the lobby?
He is refusing to recognise the distinction between "Fires managed within the scope of what the building was designed for" and "Fires managed outside the scope of what the building was designed for". That distinction is pivotal to the philosophy of standards-setting and regulation. But it is looking like i"m the only p[person identifying that key issue. So no point me trying yet again to discuss the OP issues and its ambiguity about "Achilles' Heel".What knowledge Thomas B?
That WTC7's column 79 would end up being your so called "Achilles' Heel"?
That thermal expansion due to fires can cause total collapse?
Is that correct?
Why wouldn't they want to be in the lobby if three floors somewhere way up in the building collapsed? What was the risk? It's ok, you're allowed to use the same common sense that the firefighters and anyone with half a brain would use.I guess we could "speculate". But why not just take this exactly for what it's worth. They were worried about local, not global collapse. And if three floors collapse somewhere up in the building, you do not want to be in the lobby.
Anyway, this is why I come here. That 1991 report really interesting. Thanks for that.
Believe me, I get that.You don't get that I'm saying they didn't have the means at the WTC7 site but they did have the means to get those means (water) to the site. It was just a question of devoting scarce means to the task of getting those means.
that decision only pertained to that inspection group, that wasn't the command decision.
He is refusing to recognise the distinction between "Fires managed within the scope of what the building was designed for" and "Fires managed outside the scope of what the building was designed for". That distinction is pivotal to the philosophy of standards-setting and regulation. But it is looking like i"m the only p[person identifying that key issue. So no point me trying yet again to discuss the OP issues and its ambiguity about "Achilles' Heel".
He's been playing that trick with me, you and others for five pages of posts on this occasion.And it is noted that you, true to fashion, just selectively replied to only a portion of my post so that you can spend 5 more pages pretending you don't understand the rest.
You're welcome.I disagree with you being the only one identifying that key issue.
He will not accept the concept of what I prefer to call the "Design Envelope" i.e. the full suite of standards and conditions the building was designed to live and survive under.Clearly WTC7's fire scenario was outside the scope. Thomas B thinks that whist happened in WTC7 should have been a known weakness and designed for.
It looks like you are new to rational discussion of the WTC 9/11 collapses. The comments you make are established truther cant and mendaciously dishonest. The "has never happened before" is not true - it is a lie by partial truth innuendo. Remember that WTC7 was - like WTC1 and WTC2 - a steel-framed structure. More vulnerable to fire than concrete structures,
Let me ask you something.I'm not sure what else I can tell you other than that NIST says that before 9/11 firefighters didn't expect fires in skyscrapers to cause total progressive collapse.
The firefighters watched WTC1 and WTC2 survive the plane impacts and then fought the fires therein for an extended period before those buildings collapsed. The fact that the fires, and not the plane impacts themselves, were the actual proximate cause for those collapses was the most logical conclusion in the world. Like the towers, WTC7 suffered but survived massive impact damage (from huge portions of WTC1, not a plane, but the damage was evident nonetheless) and was also on fire. Assuming its fires could also ultimately cause it to collapse was the most obvious logical conclusion one could draw in the moment.WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by planes. A logical conclusion someone could draw from their collapses is "A skyscraper hit by an airliner is in danger of collapse". You wouldn't draw the conclusion that "A skyscraper with office fires is in danger of collapse", especially when that has happened numerous times in the past with no collapse.
If you want to discuss those issues - better in another thread. You refer to "office fires" which is truther mendacity. None of the 3 WTC Towers fires were the "office fires" the towers were designed to survive. The Twin Towers possibly more extreme than WTC7. But the WTC 7 fires were deliberately not fought, sprinklers were not effective and the fires had multiple start up points. Which put it well outside the parameters WTC7 was designed to survive.WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by planes. A logical conclusion someone could draw from their collapses is "A skyscraper hit by an airliner is in danger of collapse". You wouldn't draw the conclusion that "A skyscraper with office fires is in danger of collapse", especially when that has happened numerous times in the past with no collapse.
It feels to me like they didn't feel particularly safe to start with, and that the loud noise was the "let's get out NOW" prompt, but I'm speculating. If you really want to know, try to find the testimonies.So the inspection group thought it was safe for them to be in a creaking building, and decided otherwise only when they heard a "loud noise"?
It feels to me like they didn't feel particularly safe to start with, and that the loud noise was the "let's get out NOW" prompt, but I'm speculating. If you really want to know, try to find the testimonies.So the inspection group thought it was safe for them to be in a creaking building, and decided otherwise only when they heard a "loud noise"?
page 300 (344pdf)As they observed the area, they heard the building creaking.
...
Also, they continued to hear creaking noises in the building.21 As the FDNY Officers continued their inspection of WTC 7, they heard a loud noise, and a Chief decided that they should evacuate the building.
Baloney.They were worried about local, not global collapse.
Well, this feels about 1/2 right.Buridan's ass...
If you want to discuss those issues - better in another thread. You refer to "office fires" which is truther mendacity. None of the 3 WTC Towers fires were the "office fires" the towers were designed to survive. The Twin Towers possibly more extreme than WTC7. But the WTC 7 fires were deliberately not fought, sprinklers were not effective and the fires had multiple start up points. Which put it well outside the parameters WTC7 was designed to survive.
So take care with those common lies that the Truth Movement pushes. "Office Fires" is one. "Free Fall proves CD" is another (it doesn't) then references to "in footprint" and several more.
OP a thread or find a thread and tag me and I'll outline some explanations. We are already off-topic here.
Drawing an equivalence between the damage from the plane impacts and debris hitting WTC7 seems like a stretch to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of the debris reached deep inside the building? The chunks of debris were falling mostly vertically and impacting the south face.The firefighters watched WTC1 and WTC2 survive the plane impacts and then fought the fires therein for an extended period before those buildings collapsed. The fact that the fires, and not the plane impacts themselves, were the actual proximate cause for those collapses was the most logical conclusion in the world. Like the towers, WTC7 suffered but survived massive impact damage (from huge portions of WTC1, not a plane, but the damage was evident nonetheless) and was also on fire. Assuming its fires could also ultimately cause it to collapse was the most obvious logical conclusion one could draw in the moment.
Drawing an equivalence between the damage from the plane impacts and debris hitting WTC7 seems like a stretch to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of the debris reached deep inside the building? The chunks of debris were falling mostly vertically and impacting the south face.
As I understand NIST, if you mean "skyscraper" when you say "building" then the answer is no. I'm very open to any evidence (from NIST or from prior cases) where they did come such a realization. Again, according to NIST, it hadn't happened before, so if any firefighters ever suspected it, their suspicions were not confirmed.At any time prior to 9/11, did firefighters ever come to the realization, while at the scene of a fire, that there is a possibility that the building on fire might collapse due to said fire?
OK. Now I know you're not even paying attention. You are responding to a comment about the 1991 One Merridan Plaza fire.
I generally respond to the parts of comments that I can make sense of. If you're wondering why I've ignored something, you might check whether you've accused me of lying or being an idiot or something like that like in or near the same breath. It's been a while since I bothered engaging with the invective that is endemic to this forum.And it is noted that you, true to fashion, just selectively replied to only a portion of my post so that you can spend 5 more pages pretending you don't understand the rest.
I generally respond to the parts of comments that I can make sense of. If you're wondering why I've ignored something, you might check whether you've accused me of lying or being an idiot or something like that like in or near the same breath. It's been a while since I bothered engaging with the invective that is endemic to this forum.
Right. My policy in dealing with trolls is simply not to engage with them. So I also don't engage with people who call me a troll, because I assume at some level they're not engaging either. There is no longer good faith between us, so there's no point in discussing things. Until now, I had just ignored your invective, but since you're being decent enough to declare it openly, lets just leave it there. Though you don't think I'm being sincere, I thank you for your time, such as it was.That is lying for the purpose of trolling. Others are more circumspect in calling you out on it, but it is what it is.
I'm going to think about that some more. But this discussion has also raised another question, which may be the same issue, just defined a bit more narrowly:By the way, I'm really interested in the pushback against this "greater urgency" remark of mine. Why is it so important to debunk the idea that 9/11 changed the way firefighters approach skyscrapers? How does it make the truthers' case stronger if NIST's report had an effect on firefighters' sense of urgency about the potential for total progressive collapse?
OK. Now I know you're not even paying attention. You are responding to a comment about the 1991 One Merridan Plaza fire.
Like I say, you don't seem to be paying attention, so I'm not sure how useful this will be. But here goes...You hold that same opinion about the firefighters knowledge of WTC7 on 9/11 right?
They weren't worried about at total/global collapse , only possible local collapses.
Correct or not?
For me personal I do not have the intention to debunk that idea, but also I don't think it is a statement which is true.Why is it very important to debunk the idea that firefighters did not expect fire to be able to cause the total progressive collapse of a skyscraper?
The firefighters feared total/global collapse of WTC7 because of the combination of structural damage it suffered from WTC1's collapse AND resultant, unfought fires?Like I say, you don't seem to be paying attention, so I'm not sure how useful this will be. But here goes...
1. It is clear from the NIST report that firefighters were worried that WTC7 would suffer global collapse.
2. WTC7, as we all know, did suffer global collapse.
3. 1MP did not suffer global collapse.
4. It is clear from the FEMA report that firefighters worried that "the fire damaged floors" in 1MP might collapse.
I read these four statements (which express my views) as stating different opinions about WTC7 and 1MP.
The reasons the firefighters had for fearing (local) collapses in 1MP were not the reasons firefighters had for fearing the (global) collapse of WTC7. After all, 1MP was "only" on fire. But WTC7 had also suffered a great deal of structural damage and, as you point out, was "bulging".
So, I'd say my answer to your question is: not correct.
It's not a correct statement of my view, if that's what you mean. (I may of course be wrong.) I don't think the firefighters were worried that WTC7 would collapse because of the fires. I think they let the fires burn* because they were worried that the building would collapse because of the structural damage it had suffered from WTC1.The firefighters feared total/global collapse of WTC7 because of the combination of structural damage it suffered from WTC1's collapse AND resultant, unfought fires?
Is that a correct statement?