- Joined
- Sep 22, 2013
- Messages
- 3,514
- Reaction score
- 2,448
- Location
- Moss Vale, NSW, AU
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Could well be - since wooden buildings are a legitimate subset of buildings.Building Collapse: Learn the Warning Signs
Is it me, or is your source actually talking about wooden building fires?
Building Collapse: Learn the Warning Signs
Is it me, or is your source actually talking about wooden building fires?
Could well be - since wooden buildings are a legitimate subset of buildings.
But stop playing silly games.
The Incident Commander was faced by the need to make a decision. In real time. He made it. In real time. And subsequent events proved him right.
Raising the issue is a waste of time at this stage 15 years later. Even raising it with honest intent would be a waste of effort UNLESS it was to identify a legitimate need to improve emergency management protocols. And I will discuss legitimate arguments in that domain with anyone competent to raise them.
So if the question arose in the proper context - which is debrief of incident management after the event - the issue is non sequitur.
And raising it in support of dishonest claims by CT's on internet forums 15 years after the event is sure sign of CT's who know they have lost the argument.
Yeah lul cause a wooden house is totally like WTC 7.
From taking a look around, the other side plays plenty of games.
Intentional ignorance of what firefighters consider signs of instability in ALL structures.
Intentional ignorance of what firefighters consider signs of instability in ALL structures.
As said - stop playing silly games. Other members may respond to your nonsense - I won't - if you have nothing serious to say I wont waste effort responding.Yeah lul cause a wooden house is totally like WTC 7.
The grade school kids on the school buses I drive play that one.From taking a look around, the other side plays plenty of games.
I asked how they would create instability. It sounds like you don't know. I would also bet you wouldn't realize that most if not all bulges would have nothing to do with stability of a structure and that it is simply the skin (non-structural) that is bulging.
As said - stop playing silly games. Other members may respond to your nonsense - I won't - if you have nothing serious to say I wont waste effort responding.
The grade school kids on the school buses I drive play that one.
Me to misbehaving kid. Q: "Did you hit him?"
Alleged offender. A: "He hit me first."
-- it is a confession NOT a defence.
The challenge I issued to you was to address the real problem.
If you don't want to or are incapable "From taking a look around..." you have a lot of incompetent allies.
However - if you decide to get serious - let me know.
The offer is still open. If you want to get serious just let me know - or simply post a serious claim with an outline of supporting argument.If I played along with every single thing every reply said, It would be a literally endless internet argument. I don't care for that. You choose to believe that I'm playing games, so sure, whatever, I am.
Around 1230 Deputy Director of the OEM, Richard Rotanz has to make an assessment on the damage to WTC 7. On the exterior he sees the upper 10-15 floors of Tower 7 on fire. "The skin of the building or the outside skirt of the building was taken out,¿ he says. "You see columns gone. You see floors damaged and you see heavy black smoke and fire."
He then enters the WTC 7. "At the time the building wasn't safe but we had to make an assessment, just the same, and we didn't spend that long. You could hear the building creak above us, you could hear things fall, you could hear the fire burning. You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us.
"There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall. This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."
Seems people were concerned about the conditions elsewhere as well.....
More signs of instability.
Definitely not bomb damage.Lol, you stole my source without actually providing a link.
"There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall."
hmmmm... structural damage or bomb damage?
More denial of this "magic elevator" issue in the "Bazant Misconduct website is launched" thread.
The offer is still open. If you want to get serious just let me know - or simply post a serious claim with an outline of supporting argument.
Lol, you stole my source without actually providing a link.
"There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall."
hmmmm... structural damage or bomb damage?
More denial of this "magic elevator" issue in the "Bazant Misconduct website is launched" thread.
Definitely not bomb damage.
All I know is that it wasn't a bomb.Maybe you could explain the magic elevator in the "Bazant Misconduct website is launched" thread?
Intentional ignorance of what Richard Rotanz said....
He was very clear.
And it is clear you are trolling at this point.
The source that Fledermaus cited was specifically talking about wooden buildings.
Source: Fledermaus's source.
Rotanz deduced that what he saw was caused by the collapse of the North Tower because he believes in the official story and he was on a program designed to spread propaganda against the controlled demolition hypothesis.
Rotanz is not here, so you're stuck trying to explain how such a thing is physically possible.
"21.3.2 - High-Order Damage. High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise. (See Figure 21.3.2.)"
Source: NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, 2004 edition http://www.sierragal.com/252_stuff/NFPA_921.pdf
And in true CT manner you ignore the other sources that say practically the same thing.
Building Collapse: Learn the Warning Signs
Mar 4, 2009
One of the greatest hazards in firefighting is the threat of collapse in a building. What makes this scenario even more dangerous is that we do not have to be on the inside to get killed. We must be alert on the fire scene, and be aware of the signs of imminent collapse.
Too often we are being hurt or killed as a result of exterior collapse situations. Statistics from the USFA reveal that the number of firefighters lost annually due to residential collapses have tripled since the 1980s — despite a decrease in the average number of annual fatalities during the same time period. Structural collapses can come without any warning, and often are very difficult to predict.
Incident command should consider the following when determining collapse potential:
Structural inadequacy, poor construction, illegal or non engineered renovations
Fire size and location, and conditions on arrival
Age of building
Previous fire
Fire load to structural members
Backdraft or explosions
Engineered lumber, truss joists, nail plates
Load increase as a result of water load
Cutting structural members during venting operations
Cracks or bulges in wall
Water or smoke that pushes through what appears to be a solid masonry wall
Unusual noises coming from building or dwelling
Truck operations notice soft or spongy footing
Weather extremes
Where does it state specifically wood buildings?
Ignorant claim is ignorant.
You are playing the "they are all in on it" card.
When did he enter WTC7? It's right there.
He explains the damage done to the structure....
And you continue to ignore.
Building Collapse: Learn the Warning Signs
Where does it say steel buildings or tall buildings? The videos they provide seem to be about wooden building fires. There's a link down below where you can contact the author.
Apples and oranges.
Either way, you have no evidence that the bulge in WTC 7 was any big deal. Only a few witnesses saw it and there apparently isn't any photographic evidence. You think the collapse started on the opposite side at the East Penthouse, right? Or does this discussion stem from your trying to rationalize the WTC 7 foreknowledge? Dude, the bulge didn't do ****.
The source that Fledermaus cited was specifically talking about wooden buildings.
Source: Fledermaus's source.
Is everyone who accepts the official story "in on it"? Quite a stretch for the dumb label you're trying to fit onto me.
Rotanz deduced that what he saw was caused by the collapse of the North Tower because he believes in the official story and he was on a program designed to spread propaganda against the controlled demolition hypothesis.
Richard Rotanz seems to have been on the show specifically to defend the official story. Obviously he agrees, but a witnesses interpretation of what they said they saw is different from what they actually did are two totally different things. .
Where does he explain how the elevator car got there? In the form of "when X happened, X happened, making the elevator car physically come out of it's shaft, come through the doors, and it landed several feet away."
Where does it state specifically wood buildings?
Where does it state specifically wood buildings?
Why do you need further explanation?
WTC1 debris hit WTC7. Not enough to cause the collapse but enough to do the damage he states.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?