WTC7 Firefighting

Discussion in '9/11' started by Ron J, Oct 20, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member

    "I am not playing anything here at all. This is a very serious event that has repercussions on a global scale toward building safety."

    All the demolition theory critics have said that no steel high rise ever fell due to fire, until 9/11.

    One of the big details about WTC7, was that the NYFD did not fight the fire, in part due to a lack of water. This may be a bigger factor as to the collapse of WTC7, than whether the failure of column 79 or something else in the east wing, initiated the catastrophic failure.

    Floor to ceiling flames were pouring out east windows on the 8th? floor of WTC7. No water was sprayed into those windows, to quench the fire. Locally, the other day, there was a fire on the 11th floor of a 25 floor apartment building on Wilshire. Flames were pouring beyond floor to ceiling out of windows. From a nearby balcony LAFD quickly knocked down most of the flame pouring out, once they got a hose on it. If the fire had been left unchecked, it would have likely burned up to the next floor, as flames had already cut a hole into the exterior wall on the 12th floor. Engineers were going to check the structural integrity, but the integrity would likely have been worse, if the fire had been allowed to spread upward in the building.

    I have not seen your videos and thus do not have an opinion as to whether your assessment is correct or not.
     
  2. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    Thank you for your anecdote about a domestic building fire. May I suggest that you go and watch the videos. And then read this thread from the start. When you have done that your opinion on whether critical errors have been uncovered would be welcomed.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2013
  3. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Lack of water? Notice the big jet of water aimed at WTC 5 which was an inferno. No attempt was made to fight the office fires in 7, just a little up the road from there. Any suggestions as to why they would fight an inferno, which is obviously a lost battle, but not fight a few office fires in an apparently saveable building?

    [​IMG]

    Yes, why not fight these office fires but fight the inferno above?

    [​IMG]


    Probably best not to advertise the fact that you are willfully uninformed about the facts of an argument when commenting on a thread devoted to said argument. :(
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  4. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member

    Who is willingly uninformed?

    "Boyle: 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."


    They weren't a few office fires.

    From an E-mail by Chief Daniel Nigro: 4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

    The above photo is of the North side of WTC7. A photo taken from the west, showing the South side of WTC7, showed major smoke billowing up along the South face.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  5. Tony Szamboti

    Tony Szamboti Active Member

    You may have already said this somewhere, as I think I remember reading it, but just in case you didn't everyone should know that, there were at least two fireboats 400 yards away in the Hudson all afternoon that were capable of pumping enormous amounts of water and WTC 7 had three large sets of Siamese fittings on its exterior that could have been used to charge the sprinkler system in the building. Nobody even needed to go in the building.

    Amazingly, word came from Rudy Giuliani's office about 1:00 PM that "seven was lost". There was never even any attempt to fight the fires in it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member

    Ron J said: This is a very serious event that has repercussions on a global scale toward building safety. I have not seen your videos and thus do not have an opinion as to whether your assessment is correct or not.



    The first sentence of Ron J said should be in quotes, as it was when i typed it, as i was quoting you.
    "This is a very serious event that has repercussions on a global scale toward building safety."
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2013
  7. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Yes, thanks for posting that. I have mentioned it a number of times but it never gets addressed... much the same as Ron chose not to address the question of 'why they had water to waste tackling the out of control inferno wtc5 but none to fight some office fires which could easily have been extinguished, wtc7', especially when the reason given is patently untrue, (lack of water), and when the visual evidence strongly contradicts the official statements.

    Chief Nigro and others have made a number of statements for which the evidence is diametrically opposed. No wonder conspiracy theories abound.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2013
  8. mynym

    mynym Banned Banned

    False. But there's no need to go into how false that "big detail" is on this thread according to Metabunk programming. All that needs to be said here is there probably can't be any critical details in NIST's report because it has all the hallmarks of pseudo-science. Proponents of NIST's theories or "collapse due to fire" have yet to specify what type of evidence would falsify all of their theories and how that evidence could be found by officials and compilers of the official story if no one was ever allowed to look for it, officially.

    But since you've opened the door I'm going to ramble too, to note that it's unlikely that any "big" or "critical errors" can be found within Mick's vivid imagination and theories that could include anything from: "It was just multiple failures.. due to fire... and damage... due to office fires... but the antenna that just fell too... or maybe it was just the explosive properties of donuts too. Or maybe a bird flew by and just pooped on the whole thing, which put it over the edge and caused a progressive collapse in the interior that was only seen later on the exterior. It was just the scale of the buckling involved after the initiating event of bird poop put the whole thing over the edge... plus a problem of scale... or just something. Here, look at this soda can." Etc. It might be easier to work backward, as perhaps the only specification to the theory is what it is not: "It was anything but a demolition. It could have been anything and pretty much everything but that."

    The only possible specification/falsification I could get with respect to his rather imaginative theories originally was "...anything not in the NIST report." Whatever that means. (I have numerous falsifications/verifications in mind for my own theories at a base or scientific level. But most of them involve people following standard operating procedures and doing their jobs instead of trying to create unfalsifiable simulations of investigations.) I doubt that Mick's falsifications are critical or are actually rooted in the technical details of the report or what's not in the report, whatever they are.

    Maybe it's semantically "critical" to understand language and any pseudo-scientific shift toward "Prove, analytically, it's not everything else I can imagine!" mental illusions linked to the spelling/spells of magick in debates like this about "central conclusions" within the Right/Left paradigm of our brains? (Nothing against pseudo-science... as astrology can become astronomy or alchemy, chemistry... etc.) And I like Mick, he seems to have some sort of scientific integrity even when push comes to technical shove, he seems to push science as far as possible back toward the more pseudo-scientific side of things. I'm also just not sure about the whole idea of trying to program about half of all reason out of existence and then turning to claim that you're "just"/actually dealing with reality as a whole or know that the occult "just" does or does not exist scientifically and so forth if/when you clearly don't know much about it. And it's probably inevitable that people will notice the foregone "central arguments" typical to Metabunk's programming, even it's subconscious. Something along the lines of: "I can't quite articulate it but it seems like something is wrong with the programming here."

    Many Metabunkers also seem to know that if they admit that intelligence was involved in bringing down WTC 7 then significant aspects of their official worldview might collapse at near free fall speeds too. Whether the over all official story/theory and worldview is "metabunk" or not is more "critical" than the technical details and the unfalsifiable/unverifiable theories and simulations that people tend to use to maintain an over all worldview that rests in the center of the brains between our symbolic Right/Left pillars. (One might say that the two towers or the pillars of the Right and the Left are the seat of Solomon's wisdom/temple. If more people understood metaphysics and "metabunk" involving them then it's likely that more of the technical and scientific details would come into focus within the big picture too. Just saying.)
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2013
  9. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member


    They weren't some office fires. A photo of the south face showed smoke billowing up along the entire south face of WTC7. One hose on a snorkel pointed at WTC5, is not a lot of water. There were multiple fires on multiple floors in WTC7. That would have required a lot of water in multiple locations. It is patently false that the fires in WTC7 could have been easily extinguished.
     
  10. thedude953

    thedude953 Member

    guys check out the information out there detailing by real experts showing why a pancake theory is not possible due to structural failure, this is a fallacy they use which leaves out key core column facts which then makes the theory possible. a few are jim Hoffman, he debunks the pancake theory, weidlinger and associates has also debunked this theory just check out the information, there are plenty of experts who aren't trying to b/s anyone who will show real information real facts and actually debunk things just take a look, office fires ect the theory the fire and fuel would travel down the elevator shafts, there is a good one showing how the shafts and core of the wtc towers were specifically designed to not let this happen. don't just read what the people on here most who are clueless as to the real facts they just read something and post it look for yourselves!! the real debunkers don't have to go on a bunking website they just put out the information guys.
     
  11. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Really? What exactly were they then?
    There may be no smoke without fire but smoke is not actually fire and as discussed on other threads a lot of the smoke came from elsewhere inc wtc5, rubble of 1 & 2 etc.

    It is certainly a lot more than NONE and why bother with 5 which is obviously a lost cause when 7 had such puny office fires and MOST OF THE BUILDING HAD NO FIRES?

    Yes we have seen the pics... nothing to write home about in the scheme of things but carry on insisting it was an inferno when it clearly wasn't.

    So you would have looked at the situation and concluded, 'Mmmmm 7 is an inferno, (just look at the smoke... that proves it), and no hope of putting that out... I'll concentrate on saving 5... that looks like it could be doused easy enough'?

    'Of course I could also set up some pumps from the fire boats to pump water directly into 7's sprinkler system, (the inlets are attached to the outside of the wall), but that seems like a waste of effort... no no, stick to putting out 5's fires, that makes sense'?

    http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2013
  12. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member


    Nonsense. There is NO credible evidence that WTC7 was demoed. Demos don't just happen.

    Mystical beings from the planet ogabooga did not beam themselves into WTC7 and set up cryomite plasma disintegraters, while an oblivious NYFD stood around outside the building.

    There is no there, there, as to a controlled demolition. It looks like a demo is not proof of a demo, it is wishful thinking.

    WTC7 was on fire, a fact that the controlled demolition believers still can't get around, no matter how much they try to belittle the effect of fire on the building.

    "Small office fires". The floor to ceiling flames roaring out the east windows on the 8th floor didn't look like a small office fire. That fire was in the wing of the building where floors collapsed beneath the east Penthouse. What was happening a little further to the west, inside the east wing, out of sight of the windows?

    Fire moved most or all the way across the north face of the 8th floor, as well as a few floors not far above the 8th. The fire had to move from the south face to get to the north face.

    The fires seen through the windows of the north face, may not have roaring infernos, but they produced heat, regardless. What effect did a fire that worked its way across the north face on certain floors have on the global "symmetrical" collapse of the building?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member

    "There may be no smoke without fire but smoke is not actually fire and as discussed on other threads a lot of the smoke came from elsewhere inc wtc5, rubble of 1 & 2 etc."

    This smoke was billowing up the south face of WTC7. It was not smoke blowing from WTC5 to the north and into WTC7

    In fact, if you look at the photo i am referring to, the smoke at the top of the building was moving to the south, which would have been TOWARD WTC5. If you look at WTC1 on fire, you will notice that the smoke was moving to the south east. Sorry, try again.
     
  14. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    So that's your argument is it? WTC 7 global symmetric, near free fall collapse caused by smoke and a bit of fire that no one thought to put out?

    and

    'I won't answer the rest because it is too hard and I can't think of anything that is in the slightest believable'

    Cool.
     
  15. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member

    They weren't some office fires.

    "Really? What exactly were they then?"


    What were they? What is a fire that runs most or all the way across the north face of the 8th floor? That isn't just some office fires. That is a wide spread fire. How many other offices on the 8th floor were burned out, that were not visible from windows on the north side? Was most of the 8th floor gutted by fire? WTC5 was an office building. You don't refer to that as some office fires, despite the fact that it was offices that were burning.
     
  16. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    No one is suggesting that...where are you getting these fantasies from?

    And in the same vain, if you want to use that as some form of logic, 'it looks like office fires destroyed this building' is not evidence that office fires destroyed the building. NIST at least made an attempt to hypothesize how it could have been caused by fire but we can see from other threads on this very forum that they may have made some errors, which would eliminate that particular sequence as being possible, which takes us right back to square one: ok, office fires did this somehow. Point being, that was the hypothesis from day one.

    Actually, the effects of fire on the components of the building that NIST claims initiated the collapse are being disputed (again, here on this very forum). Nobody is dancing around the fact that there was fire in the building. But you seem to think so. Of course, you are directing this statement to 'controlled demolition believers' so I'm not sure who you're referencing exactly (certainly not me).

    You just used the logic 'just because it looks this way, doesn't mean it is this way.' So wouldn't you say you've invalidated your own statement in this quote?

    What effect did the fire have on the collapse? What a weird and irrelevant question. Are you simply trying to imply that fire caused the collapse? If so, why put it in question form? Why not instead put it as a statement, with some evidence to support it?
     
  17. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Answering a question with a question eh?

    How about calling them what they were... "office fires" lasting (according to NIST), about 20 minutes or so before moving on to the next office?

    Ah, so you agree, they were office fires.... but they were 'widespread' because there were a few of them at a time? But most of the building was not on fire.

    I give in... how many were there?

    Probably, does that mean the whole building must fall down symmetrically at near free fall?

    There is a good reason for that... the whole building was fully involved in fire. Didn't someone say that about 7? Wish they had got some pictures of it like they did with 5.

    So why try to put out 5 and leave 7 completely alone? Any ideas. Decisions taken on planet ogabooga maybe?
     
  18. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member

    There were multiple fires on multiple floors in WTC7.
    "Yes we have seen the pics... nothing to write home about in the scheme of things but carry on insisting it was an inferno when it clearly wasn't."

    That would have required a lot of water in multiple locations. It is patently false that the fires in WTC7 could have been easily extinguished.​

    "So you would have looked at the situation and concluded, 'Mmmmm 7 is an inferno, (just look at the smoke... that proves it), and no hope of putting that out... I'll concentrate on saving 5... that looks like it could be doused easy enough'?"


    You have seen the pic of the south face with dark black smoke billowing up the entire exterior wall? What was the color of smoke emmanating from the towers? Dark black. Where there was smoke, there was fire. No one was putting water on it to stop it.

    The north face pics don't show all of what was going on inside the building. WTC1 debris fell into the south face. The fires seen in the north face pics had to move there from the south side of the building. How many fires on multiple floors did not move across to the north side? Additionally, one of the videos of the collapse, shot from the north side, showed a flash of flame out through windows on two upper floors. What other unseen fire might there have been?

    It is interesting how you are trying to put words in my mouth. I would have assessed the whole situation, which would have included the fire burning on multiple floors, starting on the south side of WTC7, which was causing the billowing black smoke in the south face photo i referred to, not to mention the structural concerns, which NYFD had a major interest in, having lost 343 fire fighters to building collapses already that morning.

    In your photo of WTC5, the snorkel water is reaching what, the 5th or 6th floor of a 9 story building? That snorkel couldn't reach the fire on the 8th floor of the WTC7 north face, so it is a moot point that it was shooting at WTC5. How many fire fighters were inside WTC5, fighting that fire? I don't know myself, but would ZERO be a correct number? The WTC7 fire had to be fought from within the building, on multiple floors. Not the easy task you want to imagine it to be.
     
  19. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member

    "So why try to put out 5 and leave 7 completely alone? Any ideas. Decisions taken on planet ogabooga maybe?"


    An apple is not an orange. WTC7 was not WTC5. They were two completely different fires. Why are you trying to equate them as being the same? The snorkel in your WTC5 photo does not reach the 8th floor of WTC7. A snorkel was of no use in fighting WTC7.

    Any ideas? The NYFD feared WTC7 would collapse, for one. They had already lost 343, why lose any more?
     
  20. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member

    Was most of the 8th floor gutted by fire?

    "Probably, does that mean the whole building must fall down symmetrically at near free fall?"

    Maybe it does mean that it could have. Stranger things have happened.

    One thing i have never seen happen is a demo with out any credible evidence. They simply don't just happen.
     
  21. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member

    How many other offices on the 8th floor were burned out, that were not visible from windows on the north side?

    "I give in... how many were there?"

    You don't know, thus you don't know to just what extent of damage the fire caused.
     
  22. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member

    That isn't just some office fires. That is a wide spread fire.

    "Ah, so you agree, they were office fires.... but they were 'widespread' because there were a few of them at a time? But most of the building was not on fire."

    What are in office buildings? offices. Why are you focusing on the number burning at a specific time, if the 8th floor was mostly gutted by fire by the time the building collapsed? Once steel is weakened by fire, it does not regain its original strength.

    As to most of the building was not on fire, neither were WTC1 and 2, yet they collapsed. WTC2 looked like it collapsed at the 81st/82nd floor. Those floors were on fire.
     
  23. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member

    What were they? What is a fire that runs most or all the way across the north face of the 8th floor?

    "Answering a question with a question eh?"

    Well, what is a fire that works its way most or all the way across the north face of WTC7 on a single floor?
    It wasn't simply some office fires. You don't refer to the WTC5 snorkel picture as some office fires, despite the fact that it was an office building.

    "How about calling them what they were... "office fires" lasting (according to NIST), about 20 minutes or so before moving on to the next office?"

    How about calling them what they really were: an out of control fire, that moved from room to room, damaging the building. Fire can cause a lot of damage in 20 minutes or so in one spot.

    From the WTC7 photo at the top of the page, it looked like multiple offices were on fire at the same time.
    Also a number of offices had burned on the floor below, as well as those 4 and 5 floors above the floor i am referring to.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2013
  24. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    (One might also say that if it turned out the uber-conspiracy on which your whole pretentious world-view desperately hinges were found to be more or less as it seems then your pomposity would explode into stunned whimpering silence and you would have to re-evaluate your whole existence.
    Just saying.)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  25. mynym

    mynym Banned Banned

    No officials followed standard operating procedures or looked for evidence that would therefore turn out to be credible or official.

    People can't find what they're not looking for or unwilling to look at.

    The main reason that the NYFD thought that an unprecedented event was about to take place is that they were told it would. I'm just surprised that there wasn't already the simulation of an investigation ongoing before it even happened or that the fire fighters themselves didn't have to have their underpants checked for WMDs according to Giuliani and so forth.

    No, it looks like demo serves as evidence that it may be exactly what it looks like despite pseudo-scientific theories and crackpot hypotheses.

    I suppose you might say that if it looks like smoke, that's not proof of fire.

    Although I would tend to say that where there's smoke... there's fire. It's pretty simple. It's just unlikely that the fires could burn hot enough and long enough to expand the steel but not the concrete floors as in some of NIST's more crackpot theories, etc.

    But have you run a simulation of the fires in which it actually does look like a small office fire?

    Depends on the simulation or your imagination:
    Meanwhile, back in the real world... even if someone built a building like WTC 7 and set it on fire and hit it with an antenna and so forth and it never collapsed, you still might not think it had anything to do with WTC 7 and 911.

    After all... you're already imagining that you know what happened, correct?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member

    "Small office fires". The floor to ceiling flames roaring out the east windows on the 8th floor didn't look like a small office fire. That fire was in the wing of the building where floors collapsed beneath the east Penthouse. What was happening a little further to the west, inside the east wing, out of sight of the windows?

    "You just used the logic 'just because it looks this way, doesn't mean it is this way.' So wouldn't you say you've invalidated your own statement in this quote?"

    Flames pouring out windows floor to ceiling and beyond, for that matter, do not look like a small office fire, because they are not a small office fire. I have not invalidated my own statement.

    Those who like to state "small office fires", like to ignore the fire POURING out the east windows on the 8th? floor. The fact is that what most have seen, was what was videotaped mostly from the north side of the building, the side opposite from where the fires began. What fire was doing in other parts of the building, was otherwise not recorded for anyone to see. The east side flames were evidence that all the flames were not like what was seen through the north side windows.
     
  27. mynym

    mynym Banned Banned

    I've re-evaluated and built my epistemology up from the ground many times. Nor do I claim to know everything about things that have happened like 911 or the nature of all the conspiracies involved in politics, geopolitics and so forth. I only claim to know more relative to those that seldom or never re-evaluate their whole existence, as a matter of different perspectives.

    And it seems to me that if there is "more or less" an "uber conspiracy" involving the music of the spheres then you'd have to re-evaluate your whole existence but I would not, given that I already think (and think I have experienced) some glimmering of an understanding of it but it would seem that you're unwilling to re-evaluate what you perceive as your whole existence. (Off topic, so...)
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2013
  28. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member

    Nonsense. There is NO credible evidence that WTC7 was demoed. Demos don't just happen.


    "No officials followed standard operating procedures or looked for evidence that would therefore turn out to be credible or official.

    People can't find what they're not looking for or unwilling to look at."


    That is nonsense.

    The workers who removed all the debris found no credible evidence of a demo. Even if they weren't looking for such evidence, they would have found it, if there was any.

    The Towers were struck by jetliners and collapsed after out of control fires erupted. That was where to look for the cause of collapse, not some fantasy that explosives or thermite was used by a super secret demolition team.

    Debris fell from WTC1, into WTC7, starting fires on various floors. Again, the place to be looking was damage due to fire, not a super secret demo team.
     
  29. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member

    "...no tall building has ever suffered global collapse, either before or after 9/ 11, for any reason other than demolition."

    No 110 story building has ever been demoed. How many 47 story buildings have been demoed, before or after 9/11? No 767 jetliner has been flown into a sky scraper, before or since 9/11. No 757 jetliner has been flown into a skyscraper before or since 9/11. No skyscraper has ever had debris from a 110 story building crash into it, before or since 9/11.

    The comment in quotes is rather meaningless. It has no bearing on the unique sky scraper fires on 9/11.


    "On 9/ 11, the official account says that there were three such instances— all on the same day and in the same place."

    Again, another meaningless comment. Two buildings were struck by jetliners and the third was struck by debris from one of the collapsing buildings struck by a jetliner. All three buildings had totally out of control fire.

    Burning for a while after a jetliner struck The Pentagon, a section of the building where the plane struck, collapsed.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2013
  30. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    But how do you know there were not simulations ongoing before the collapse? I can imagine that being the reason why they expected the collapse in the first place.

    Smoke is proof that 7 collapsed due to raging fires that lasted all day and enveloped the building and melted the steel... that much smoke and what else could it mean... obviously wasn't demolished because even thermite would not produce all that smoke and it was clearly the smoke that brought it down... because there was so much smoke and well what else was there that you couldn't see behind all that thick black smoke that the firemen saw and decided 'well 7 is beyond our help', 'lets go and put out 5, the smoke is nowhere near as bad there so the fire must be much less than 7'.

    Great all this imagining, especially when you can imagine imaginatively behind a smoke screen and about what may or may not have been going on in a building at the centre or the opposite side or underground.
     
  31. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member

    There is no there, there, as to a controlled demolition. It looks like a demo is not proof of a demo, it is wishful thinking.

    "No, it looks like demo serves as evidence that it may be exactly what it looks like despite pseudo-scientific theories and crackpot hypotheses."


    The crackpot hypothesis is that it was a demo, just because it looks like one.
     
  32. mynym

    mynym Banned Banned

    You can imagine what you will or in the case of NIST, simulate what you will.

    I think they even started a number of fires that aren't necessarily consistent with the photographic evidence or their other idea that the fire began once. They also broke out different windows to feed imaginary furnaces of fire and so forth. All of which is to say, there was never any need for the simulation. Because they were never going to get into an actual investigation of the evidence in order to build an actual body of evidence in the first place. Just like there is no need for you to be involved in discussing this, given that you already know what happened.

    No, I didn't use that logic. I just looked at it from what you wrote your perspective was, a perspective in which just because it looks like a controlled demolition that isn't evidence that it actually is what it looks like. But if there is a lot of smoke and it looks like a big hot fire, that is evidence that's exactly what it was.

    No matter if the fuel for an imaginary furnace of fire within that could cause the global collapse of a steel frame building might not or cannot be accounted for in reality, I'd imagine.

    No, I think that where there's smoke, there's usually fire. And when something looks pretty much just like a controlled demo, that's usually what it is too. So that's the first scenario or theory that should be investigated and not the last.

    What flames pouring out windows are you talking about? The integrity of your logic is invalidated because when something looks like a controlled demolition that doesn't serve as evidence that it is in the least. But apparently if you see smoke, then that's evidence of fires hot enough to... well, do whatever else you're imagining involving a series of unprecedented failures within the building.

    Keeping in mind that the evidence doesn't actually matter if you already know what happened and can only see or find evidence that verifies what you already know... still, as far as the evidence goes... what was burning and creating the imaginary furnaces of fire that expanded steel but not concrete and so forth?

    Because:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  34. mynym

    mynym Banned Banned

    You're not grasping scientific reasoning. If something "looks like" an event that has widespread precedence then that's where the investigation and theorizing should begin.

    It's not "just" because of that, as a conclusion. That's the beginning. And then a body of evidence can be built up/verified or refined/falsified based on a specified theory.

    If it wasn't a demo then NIST did everyone a disservice by failing to begin with and investigate what it looked like in order to falsify that theory. They began with fire and collapse due to fire. So no one should be surprised that they only found or simulated evidence of what they were looking for. People only find what they're willing to look for or look at. It's that simple.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  35. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    They didn't begin with fire. They began with collapse. They then investigated possible cause of that collapse, narrowing it down to the loss of C79. They then looked into how that could happen from fire, and how it could happen from explosives.
     
  36. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    And what makes the explosion theory incredible? Lack of finding remnants of a bomb?
    If it only took the removal of one column to cause the collapse, wouldn't that require minimal amounts of explosives? I mean, if fire could do that...
     
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Sure, you could just pack a ton of thermite around C79 and you'd be good.
     
  38. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    And is thermite the only option as far as explosives goes?
     
  39. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    What is this, groundhog day :)
     
  40. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    IIRC it is the total and complete absence of any evidence of any explosives, explosive residue, any known plans for explosives, and that sort of thing.....
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.