[Moderated]Did Chief Nigro call Silverstein? The answer is finally available

Miragememories said:
Expert is derived from the word experience and the firefighters had no experience with the kind of collapses that occurred at WTC on 9/11.

They were not in a position to pass expert judgement as the situation was beyond their level of expertise.
Click to expand...

No, that's incorrect.

The expertise that firefighters possess is not about determining technical collapse mechanisms. It's about looking at a building that is heavily damaged and on fire and determining whether or not it is in danger of collapsing.

To assert that firefighters are not qualified to assess the possible collapse of burning buildings is not only ridiculous on its face, but also leaves the claimant in the rather awkward position of then having to explain why the City of New York gave NYFD sole authority to do just that on 9/11.
 
twinstead said:
Since his novel approach to hand waving away the observations of knowledgeable people on 911 is to simply declare them incompetent or inexperienced, one would think that some pretty solid corroborating evidence to his claims would be forthcoming.

Sadly, this never happens.
Click to expand...

You cannot have knowledge about that for which there is no knowledge.

Prior to 9/11, no event similar to the complete collapses of WTC 1,2 & 7 had ever occurred except by deliberate human intention.

All the firefighters could do was speculate and act prudently.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
You cannot have knowledge about that for which there is no knowledge.

Prior to 9/11, no event similar to the complete collapses of WTC 1,2 & 7 had ever occurred except by deliberate human intention.

All the firefighters could do was speculate and act prudently.

MM
Click to expand...
What happened to the Titanic MM?

Could you quote those firefighters saying that the fires weren't that bad? Thanks in advance.
 
R.Mackey said:
You aren't the first to quote this paper at me, pal. Russell Pickering was. It turned out that he hadn't even read it.

Have you read it? Yes or no answer, please. If the answer is "no," then there's no point in my trying to explain it to you.

P.S.: I've worked with wind and water tunnels before. You're not talking to a peer.
Click to expand...

WTC7 imploded from a controlled demolition.

It wasn't a failed building launch which appears to be the area of expertise you were referring to.

MM
 
JHarrow said:
Please quote me where I called the FDNY liars or retract your statement.
Click to expand...

You called them liars when you called their statements of what they observed lies. I will not retract, and will amplify. You need to either contact each of those men and question their statements to their face or YOU are the one who needs to retract and desist from this course of libel.
 
Miragememories said:
A 47 story, city block area building, and the best argument you can present for it being fully involved by fire is maybe a dozen windows showing flames and a lot of close up images for those too ignorant to know what fire looks like.
Click to expand...

And the testimony of firefighters that were on the scene. Don't forget them. Here's some courtesy of Alt+4, in case you did:

Alt+F4 said:
1. We walked over by number SevenWorldTradeCenter as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca

2. Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories. –FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers

6.The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

9. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade

You can read the rest here:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
Click to expand...
 
@1:37
"look at the hole in that building. (unintelligible) it's gonna come down"

Also notice jharrows 'Wake effect" around almost every south window.

For those fence sitters scoring at home. Notice the building is trapezoid shaped with the south face being much narrower than the north face. Now what were you saying about wake effect harrow?
 
R.Mackey said:
Evasion noted. I would be much more inclined to educate you if you did not misrepresent yourself. There is no shame in asking for help, or admitting one has not read everything. Remember this.

The paper you cited, by NOAA researcher Dr. Alan Huber -- who, incidentally, was one of many who researched aerial contaminant distribution in the World Trade Center aftermath -- is totally inapplicable to the WTC 7 case as you intended. There are several reasons for this:

  1. The WTC 7 fires were seen on all four faces, and strongly on three faces. That's emerging flame, not just smoke.
  2. The "leeward side" of a structure is the side opposite the freestream. There can only be one. The phenomenon discussed in this paper only concerns entrained smoke behind the bluff body, and cannot possibly affect the other two sides.
  3. Any structure in a freestream creates what is called a stagnation point, and the area of stagnation is greatest where the structure contacts the ground. Even the abstract alludes to this. This is because at the ground, there are no vortices coming over the top of the structure -- the flow close to the ground is purely two dimensional. There is no way for this effect to work at upper stories, such as 28-30, but there is a large volume of smoke seen there.
  4. There is no well-defined freestream at ground level in a city. Interference effects from other structures will create a very complicated buffeting flow, and this will break up the stagnant zone.
  5. The stagnant zone is also only temporary anyway. The freestream creates what is known as a von Karman Vortex Street, in honor of Theodore von Karman. The fluid oscillates back and forth. This is part of what makes flags wave and ripple in the wind, for instance. Anyway, this oscillation will periodically clear away the entrained smoke, as again, was noted even in the abstract.
  6. The other major flow contributor is convection. This was not modeled in Dr. Huber's paper. This convection, either from WTC 7 or from whatever the alleged source of smoke was, will disrupt the steady freestream as well.

This whole line of argument is analogous to, and equally stupid as, Jim Hoffman's claim that "heated air refraction" explains away the bowing seen in the perimeter columns of WTC 1 and WTC 2. Fluids just aren't that clean. You might be able to create something like this in a carefully controlled laminar situation, but we are at very high Reynolds numbers and turbulence will be everywhere.

That ought to do it. Thank you for your attention.
Click to expand...

Nice cut 'n paste job without any sign that you understand a word of it.

The WTC 1 & 2 'analogous' reference is just a strawman and not addressing the subject in question, WTC7.

Obviously you are trying to steer your explanations away from what you know nothing about to subject areas that you have sufficient expertise to snow most readers.

Too funny.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
A 47 story, city block area building, and the best argument you can present for it being fully involved by fire is maybe a dozen windows showing flames and a lot of close up images for those too ignorant to know what fire looks like.

Pathetic!

MM
Click to expand...



A city block area building? So clearly an inferno can exist deep inside a structure fire almost half a city block within the building. Such an inferno will produce vast volumes of smoke that could obscure open flames from being seen a quarter mile away.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Nice cut 'n paste job without any sign that you understand a word of it.

The WTC 1 & 2 'analogous' reference is just a strawman and not addressing the subject in question, WTC7.

Obviously you are trying to steer your explanations away from what you know nothing about to subject areas that you have sufficient expertise to snow most readers.

Too funny.

MM
Click to expand...

....
Edited by chillzero: 
Edited to remove inappropriate image
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R.Mackey said:
You dare act this dishonestly while complaining about me?? Your comment -- that I quoted and linked -- was made before mine. You said WTC 7 contained "no discernible inferno."

That's a lie. A whopper of a lie. As I said before, if it should turn out that a better estimate puts WTC 7 at #2 of all time, that's not going to help your statement.
What dictionary are you using that draws a distinction between "inferno" and "severe fire?" This I got to see.
Click to expand...

Nice Spin Mr. Mackey.

Since the dictionary defines inferno as "a large fire that is dangerously out of control", you can stamp inferno on virtually any building fire that isn't being fought.

Of course most people conjure up images that would make the WTC7 fires pale in comparison.

Your numbers are meaningless as far as placing WTC7 as No.2 for all time.

Fires started and fires burned out on several of WTC7's floors.

What WTC7 was, was a smoking inferno, with much of the smoke supplied by WTC6 which showed more real evidence of a flaming inferno (and it didn't collapse either).

The new Gravy at work...too funny.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
WTC7 imploded from a controlled demolition.

It wasn't a failed building launch which appears to be the area of expertise you were referring to.

MM
Click to expand...

In the not too distant future,
Next Sunday A.D.
There was a guy named Joel,
Not too different from you or me
He worked at Gizmonics Institute,
Just another face in a red jumpsuit
He did a good job cleaning up the place,
But his bosses didn't like him,
So they shot him into space!

"We'll send him cheesy movies,
"The worst we can find (la-la-la)
"He'll have to sit and watch them all,
"And we'll monitor his mind (la-la-la)
Now keep in mind Joel can't control,
Where the movies begin or end (la-la-la)
Because he used those special parts,
To make his robot friends

Robot Roll Call: (Come on, let's go)
Cambot (Pan left)
Gypsy (Hi girl)
Tom Servo (What a cool guy)
Croooow! (You little wisecracker)

If you're wondering how he eats and breathes,
And other science facts (la-la-la)
Then repeat to yourself, "It's just a show,
I should really just relax".
For... MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000!


No, MM, it was a launch! Bwahaha! And Joel is up there NOW being made to read YOUR POSTINGS while we monitor his MIND!
 
Miragememories said:
Nice cut 'n paste job without any sign that you understand a word of it.

The WTC 1 & 2 'analogous' reference is just a strawman and not addressing the subject in question, WTC7.

Obviously you are trying to steer your explanations away from what you know nothing about to subject areas that you have sufficient expertise to snow most readers.

Too funny.

MM
Click to expand...
Seems like a perfectly reasonable discussion surrounding the smoke emanating from WTC7.

If you're so sure it's a cut and past job that RMackey doesn't understand, perhaps you'd like to explain it to us laymen here. After all, stating that he doesn't understand it implies to me that you do understand it, no?
 
Last edited:
e^n said:
I have already posted such a picture. There may not be any pictures in existence that clearly show fire on many floors, but there are many showing aggressive fires burning within the structure, many showing large volumes of smoke coming from the building and many professional firefighters who expressed the opinion it was 'fully involved'.

What evidence do you have to contradict this claim? The standard of evidence required here must be quite high as you need to explain why exactly the firefighters involved were not correct in their assessment.
Click to expand...

Fires burn aggressively until they consume the majority of the available fuel (office furnishings), it's what they do!

They then burn out, and if they can continue to find more fuel, they will follow it. NIST stated this regarding the unfought fires in WTC 1 & 2, claiming each office furnishing-based fire peaked after approximately 20 minutes in an area where the fireproofing was claimed to have been forcibly removed.

The fact that at best, at any one time, no more than a dozen windows showed dramatic unfought flames, hardly establishes the fact that WTC7 was fully involved by fire.

The argument for this is based solely on the volume of smoke present and a lot of anecdotal evidence which is subject to various interpretation.

Interestingly, had WTC7 gone 8 hours instead of 7 (after the collapse of WTC1), nightfall would have revealed a building largely shrouded in encroaching darkness and not the flaming lantern that the Official Conspiracy Theorists wish the world to believe.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Fires burn aggressively until they consume the majority of the available fuel (office furnishings), it's what they do!
Click to expand...

duh

They then burn out, and if they can continue to find more fuel, they will follow it. NIST stated this regarding the unfought fires in WTC 1 & 2, claiming each office furnishing-based fire peaked after approximately 20 minutes in an area where the fireproofing was claimed to have been forcibly removed.
Click to expand...

duh


The fact that at best, at any one time, no more than a dozen windows showed dramatic unfought flames, hardly establishes the fact that WTC7 was fully involved by fire.
Click to expand...

well, this is where you are wrong. Fires do not have to be seen from windows, and we are talking about floors that were acres in size. What could be only a central fire, will not necessarily be seen through the windows.


of cousre, you rather ignore the testimonies of those people WHO WERE THERE!
 
TheRedWorm said:
Maybe you can address the post that DavidJames put fourth, MM. Or are you as afraid to respond as JH is? Go ahead, give it a try.
Click to expand...

I've never accused the firefighters of lying so what purpose would I have in phoning them?

I've said they were mistaken and I've explained numerous time WHY.

MM
 
Jonnyclueless said:
Thank you for confirming that you have no understanding of how structures work. Perhaps if we could just build a building big enough, there could be no damage big enough to take it down. We'll call it the Titanic.
Click to expand...

So your theory is a big iceberg took down WTC7?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
I've never accused the firefighters of lying so what purpose would I have in phoning them?
Click to expand...

because you are stating that what they saw, they didn't actuallya see. So when they make statements that "the building was fully involved", youre stating that they didn't actually see a fully involved building.



I've said they were mistaken and I've explained numerous time WHY.
Click to expand...
No you havent. and that is why we ask you little lazy bones, to CALL them. Since you wont take their quotes, or their testimony, as they say, WHY dont you get it from the horses' mouth?
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
And the testimony of firefighters that were on the scene. Don't forget them. Here's some courtesy of Alt+4, in case you did:
Click to expand...

That's the foundation of the whole friggin' Official Conspiracy Theory.

Reams and reams of anecdotal evidence from firefighters 'out of their depth', armed with statements from their superiors and trained to act with caution and avoid loss of lives.

I've been over this with you Johnny and it's like you deliberately choose to ignore it in favor of that which you wish to believe.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
So your theory is a big iceberg took down WTC7?

MM
Click to expand...
Is this what you do, just post bs because you have no facts to support the failed CD theory of 9/11 truth? Do you have any evidence, or are you just going to make junk without support? Just post bs on things you have no clue. When will you finally run out of the fluff you post in lieu of facts? What appears to normal LCF posts, are not doing the trick; your posts prove you lack facts and are ignorant of fire and 9/11; plus some other topics as you try to belittle R.Mackey and have absolutely no idea what he was talking about as he showed JHarrow was making up lies.

Are you holding out the facts for your Pulitzer Prize application, or is it true you have no facts?

Fire was documented; Chief Nigro said
The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely.
Click to expand...
 seems all the evidence is against your ideas and JHarrow; why are you guys unable to dig up one facts to support your attacks against the truth? How can 9/11 truth fail to find facts on everything?

Just skip the factless posts so your lack of facts stay hidden.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Nice Spin Mr. Mackey.

Since the dictionary defines inferno as "a large fire that is dangerously out of control", you can stamp inferno on virtually any building fire that isn't being fought.

Of course most people conjure up images that would make the WTC7 fires pale in comparison.

Your numbers are meaningless as far as placing WTC7 as No.2 for all time.

Fires started and fires burned out on several of WTC7's floors.

What WTC7 was, was a smoking inferno, with much of the smoke supplied by WTC6 which showed more real evidence of a flaming inferno (and it didn't collapse either).

The new Gravy at work...too funny.

MM
Click to expand...

So you have joined the no-flamers now good job now we have no-planers and no-flamers.
 
Miragememories said:
A 47 story, city block area building, and the best argument you can present for it being fully involved by fire is maybe a dozen windows showing flames and a lot of close up images for those too ignorant to know what fire looks like.

Pathetic!

MM
Click to expand...

They don't do to well now they haven't got the tour guide to call on as cavalry.
 
I'll take it that you're not going to contact The FDNY, are you Mr. Harrow? Some "truth seeker" you are.
 
JHarrow said:
False choice fallacy.
Click to expand...

So we are now on Planet X

Well what were they doing? Were they all just misinterpreting data.

Since you were not there how do you know?

Do you agree that your name on JREF is JHarrow?

Just trying to find any intersection of your beliefs and reality.
 
JHarrow said:
Well as I said before their accounts dont match so they can't all be correct. Why do you think their accounts differ?
Click to expand...

Vantage point perhaps? Something you could look into if you called the FDNY. But if those firefighters who said they saw fires were mistaken, then what (other than a hallucination) would make them see fires?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom