9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'

[JAStewart]

I notice that this is like a year old, I just read it in the top bbc news.

Please delete.

Original message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7485331.stm

[RedIbis]

Indeed, the case is quite closed, especially after this:

With no steel from Tower 7 to study, investigators have instead made four extremely complex computer models worked out to the finest detail.

[funk de fino]

Indeed, the case is quite closed, especially after this:

This is all you are reduced to? Hit and run troll posts like HI and Bill

How utterly sad.

[twinstead]

Indeed, the case is quite closed, especially after this:

It must be terribly frustrating for you to be completely unsatisfied with things most others, even experts, don't have a problem with. Keep up the good work; maybe something will come of it one day.

[RedIbis]

It must be terribly frustrating for you to be completely unsatisfied with things most others, even experts, don't have a problem with. Keep up the good work; maybe something will come of it one day.

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.

[Justin39640]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.

but you guys dont even consider the 110 story building next door that collapsed as an issue
you guys dont even look at this as all part of the same thing

youre not a skeptic
youre an ostrich with your head planted firmly... um... in the ground
lol

[Grizzly Bear]

but you guys dont even consider the 110 story building next door that collapsed as an issue
you guys dont even look at this as all part of the same thing

youre not a skeptic
youre an ostrich with your head planted firmly... um... in the ground
lol

Well lets' just say he has conflicting priorites (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4513845&postcount=330). I mean... we still don't have that chunk of foam that doomed Columbia, or the ice burg that supposedly sunk Titanic. :rolleyes:

[twinstead]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.
Were that the case, I would be. It's just that the collapse theory, and in fact the majority of what you call the "official story" is supported by a HUGE amount of physical evidence. You must somehow think that the government told the world's experts what happened that day and everybody just believed it, no questions asked. You must think that the world's experts are keeping their mouths shut about how the "government's story" is impossible because they're afraid, cowering in their classrooms and research labs trembling under the power of the jack-booted Red White and Blue Evil Empire.

I repeat. The collapse theory is the best narrative of what happened that day, supported by the most evidence. You don't agree? Tough. As always, feel free to submit a narrative that is supported by the available evidence better.

[Justin39640]

Were that the case, I would be. It's just that the collapse theory, and in fact the majority of what you call the "official story" is supported by a HUGE amount of physical evidence. You must somehow think that the government told the world's experts what happened that day and everybody just believed it, no questions asked. You must think that the world's experts are keeping their mouths shut about how the "government's story" is impossible because they're afraid, cowering in their classrooms and research labs trembling under the power of the jack-booted Red White and Blue Evil Empire.

I repeat. The collapse theory is the best narrative of what happened that day, supported by the most evidence. You don't agree? Tough. As always, feel free to submit a narrative that is supported by the available evidence better.

actually didnt the scrapyard guys save the 7 steel (put it to the side) and it was inspected by the first team of investigators?

[Thunder]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.

any evidence that that the reconstructed collapse model was based on anything but sound science, architectural drawings, and logic?

or are truthers just gonna nitpick?

[Sam.I.Am]

Well lets' just say he has conflicting priorites (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4513845&postcount=330). I mean... we still don't have that chunk of foam that doomed Columbia, or the ice burg that supposedly sunk Titanic. :rolleyes:

Imagine that... a big chunk of frozen water can slice into steel ~1 inch thick at 20 kts, who woulda thunk it? :rolleyes:

[Justin39640]

any evidence that that the reconstructed collapse model was based on anything but sound science, architectural drawings, and logic?

or are truthers just gonna nitpick?

does a bear (rule10) in the woods?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I notice that this is like a year old, I just read it in the top bbc news.

Please delete.

WTC7 is the holiest shrine in the truthseeker cult. An occasional reminder of the BBCs excellent documentary is a good thing.

[johnny karate]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.

And how's that expectation panning out? You know, among all the engineers and scientists you've talked to about the validity of computer modeling.

[beachnut]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.
There is evidence you deny it is evidence. The lack of explosives is hard for you and your fellow conspiracy theorists to take; get use to it it is called failure. 7 years of failed ideas (plus 10 months and 15 days)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Someone remind RedIbis that the theory about the Columbia disaster isn't supported by physical evidence, either, but he has no problem accepting that one.

ETA: Whoops. Grizzly Bear got it.

[BigAl]

Someone remind RedIbis that the theory about the Columbia disaster isn't supported by physical evidence, either, but he has no problem accepting that one.

ETA: Whoops. Grizzly Bear got it.

Not a lot of eyewitnesses, either.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Not a lot of eyewitnesses, either.


Also, people died as a result of the Columbia breakup. No one died as a result of the WTC7 collapse.

[RedIbis]

Well lets' just say he has conflicting priorites (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4513845&postcount=330). I mean... we still don't have that chunk of foam that doomed Columbia, or the ice burg that supposedly sunk Titanic. :rolleyes:

I try not to indulge false analogies, but as it appears your only defense left, I encourage you to read this interesting article about the Columbia shuttle disaster. Consider how the two events (WTC 7 collapse and subsequent investigation and the Columbia) are similar and how they are different and why you should abandon this as a tactic defending NIST's evidence bereft report.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2004/jan/11/features.magazine67

[T.A.M.]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.

You know I have been meaning to ask you. Given your constant refrain of "no evidence went into the investigation of WTC7 collapse", what exactly do you think they (NIST) should do, given they had no steel to start with?

I mean instead of griping, whining, complaining, hollering from the rooftops, about the lack of steel for their investigation, do you actually have a suggestion as what they should have done instead?

Thanks

TAM:)

[Grizzly Bear]

I try not to indulge false analogies,
It's a simple concept red, you're asking for evidence that thermal expansion buckled a column, I'm asking for evidence that a piece of thermal insulation doomed a space shuttle in re-entry. How does it feel to be confronted with your own hypocrisy?

You provide precedent of the same kind of break-off damaging shuttles:

Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"

I provide precedent showing thermal expansion damaging the structural integrity of a building:

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-049.pdf
Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted--some as much as three feet--under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

None of the precedents before the cases Columbia and WTC incidents was fatal, but they show that in both cases they were a threat, and a concern, and that under all the right circumstances they can be fatal. You are hypocrite for accepting this in one case but not in another. I suggest you get your priorities straightened before you start lecturing what evidence is, because your goalposts shift continually.

Speaking of which, perhaps we can request to get this merged with the old thread?

[A W Smith]

Redibis..

Newtons first law.

"Every body perseveres in its state of rest "or of uniform motion in a right line "unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.agree or disagree?

Can Newton's Law be proven? The answer is no, because it's impossible to be sure that your reference frame is without any accelerations.

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-01Physics-IFall1999/VideoLectures/detail/embed06.htm

[johnny karate]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.

And how's that expectation panning out? You know, among all the engineers and scientists you've talked to about the validity of computer modeling.

Red, you've claimed you would expect a "real skeptic" to share your concerns regarding the validity of the NIST WTC7 Report.

Please define what you mean by "real skeptic" (i.e. Would this include industry professionals, or merely just laypersons such as yourself?), and please let us know upon what you base this expectation.

[cyclonic]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.

eWpOfUMz6SE

[SezMe]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2004/jan/11/features.magazine67
At least get your links right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2004/jan/11/features.magazine57

OK, Red, I read it. Very interesting. But I have no idea what conclusions you might draw from it regarding 9/11. Care to elucidate?

[Wildy]

Imagine that... a big chunk of frozen water can slice into steel ~1 inch thick at 20 kts, who woulda thunk it? :rolleyes:

It wasn't a chunk of ice, it was an ice castle.

Grizzly Bear agrees with me...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence,

You mean compared to theories that have absolutely no evidence?

Apparently you feel that the photos showing WTC7 getting smashed by the collapsing north tower, smoke from massive fires pouring from every floor and the dozens of firefighter testimonies of massive fires, severe structural damage and hearing creaking coming from inside the building isn't "evidence".

[RedIbis]

You mean compared to theories that have absolutely no evidence?

Apparently you feel that the photos showing WTC7 getting smashed by the collapsing north tower, smoke from massive fires pouring from every floor and the dozens of firefighter testimonies of massive fires, severe structural damage and hearing creaking coming from inside the building isn't "evidence".

Ok, first show me a photo of smoke pouring from every floor of WTC 7. Next explain how "severe structural damage" contributed to the collapse of the bldg. Be forewarned, NIST will not support your explanation.

[johnny karate]

Ok, first show me a photo of smoke pouring from every floor of WTC 7.

Firefighter testimony supports the presence and size of the fires in WTC7. A point Sword_Of_Truth made which you conveniently ignored. Do you honestly need photographs to corroborate what these firefighters reported, or are you just engaging in another trollish game of "gotcha"?

Next explain how "severe structural damage" contributed to the collapse of the bldg. Be forewarned, NIST will not support your explanation.

Where was the claim made that severe structural damage contributed to the collapse of WTC7?

[Grizzly Bear]

Ok, first show me a photo of smoke pouring from every floor of WTC 7.
http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i268/representativepress/WTC7Fire.jpg
And some supplemental reading: LINK (http://books.google.com/books?id=g0Fx58bGuTQC&pg=PT472&lpg=PT472&dq=Fundamentals+of+Fire+Fighter+Skills++black+fire&source=bl&ots=8FGBHBl1x6&sig=Nu3htnxZkAMiqQD4Y1uc32IfwHQ&hl=en&ei=dSRzStSII4GxmAf6nMHTCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false)
Start reading three pages up from where the link places you in the book.

Next explain how "severe structural damage" contributed to the collapse of the bldg.
Damage to infrastructure allowing the fires to ignite on multiple floors, and disabling the city water mains that fed many of the sprinklers on the fire floors, allowing the fires to burn completely unabated.

Be forewarned, NIST will not support your explanation.
Doesn't matter, even the comatose could understand that the loss of the city water mains was a bad sign... for any sort of firefighting effort to could have taken place.

[Newtons Bit]

Indeed, the case is quite closed, especially after this:

I use extremely un-detailed computer models to design new buildings. None of these building have fallen down. Why would extremely detailed models used to analyze buildings that have already collapsed be unacceptable?

[BigAl]

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i268/representativepress/WTC7Fire.jpg
And some supplemental reading: LINK (http://books.google.com/books?id=g0Fx58bGuTQC&pg=PT472&lpg=PT472&dq=Fundamentals+of+Fire+Fighter+Skills++black+fire&source=bl&ots=8FGBHBl1x6&sig=Nu3htnxZkAMiqQD4Y1uc32IfwHQ&hl=en&ei=dSRzStSII4GxmAf6nMHTCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false)
Start reading three pages up from where the link places you in the book.


Damage to infrastructure allowing the fires to ignite on multiple floors, and disabling the city water mains that fed many of the sprinklers on the fire floors, allowing the fires to burn completely unabated.


Yup. That's WTC7 flaming away. You can see the 140 West St building in the foreground and it was hit with debris and fire damage, too, but unlike WTC7/1/2, it was a pre-1938 building which meant it had real fireproofing.

It and other pre-1938 buildings around WTC survived because of that fireproofing.

[RedIbis]

Doesn't matter, even the comatose could understand that the loss of the city water mains was a bad sign... for any sort of firefighting effort to could have taken place.

Sure, but according to NIST,the fire never burned out of control on more than six lower floors.

And even more importantly, NIST admits that the fires weren't extraordinarily hot, but the collapse occurs because floor-span systems thermally expanded at temps “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings."

In short, WTC 7 was never the raging, completely involved inferno that has often been claimed here.

[stateofgrace]

Sure, but according to NIST,the fire never burned out of control on more than six lower floors.

And even more importantly, NIST admits that the fires weren't extraordinarily hot, but the collapse occurs because floor-span systems thermally expanded at temps “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings."

In short, WTC 7 was never the raging, completely involved inferno that has often been claimed here.

Not here Red, by those that were there.

"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak

" All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild."

"you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames."

"At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire"

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories."

Lots more here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires), feel free to read them and let us know which fire fighter is telling lies, ok ?

[BigAl]

Sure, but according to NIST,the fire never burned out of control on more than six lower floors.

And even more importantly, NIST admits that the fires weren't extraordinarily hot, but the collapse occurs because floor-span systems thermally expanded at temps “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings."


And the fireproofing (aka resistance) of the steel in the WTC towers was, in hindsight (for most of us) woefully substandard by any standard and more-so given the unfought, gas-fueled fire. This doesn't begin to address the structural damage caused by the impact and the unplanned 100+ tons of load located in places near the structural damage and may have exceeded floor loading specs all on it's own.


In Report From Ground Zero (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when comparred to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.

Page 310, Report From Ground Zero;
http://snurl.com/j54ud [books_google_com]
Who is Vincent Dunn?
http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn



You, sir, will of course ignore this post in any substantive way.

[RedIbis]

Not here Red, by those that were there.



Lots more here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires), feel free to read them and let us know which fire fighter is telling lies, ok ?

Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event.

I don't fault them, but NIST simply does not agree with their assessment. The bldg was not fully involved, all 47 stories were not on fire.

[BigAl]

I don't fault them, but NIST simply does not agree with their assessment. The bldg was not fully involved, all 47 stories were not on fire.

Strawman and so what? It wasn't set up for man-made demolition, either.

[RedIbis]

You, sir, will of course ignore this post in any substantive way.

Well, I certainly will if you try to conflate the Twin Towers' collapse theories with WTC 7. Let's stick to the topic at hand.

[dtugg]

Hey Red, what's your theory regarding WTC7? You have one better than NIST's, remember.


I do have a theory better than NIST's.


(Red will fly away from this question again. Guaranteed).

[stateofgrace]

Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event.

I don't fault them, but NIST simply does not agree with their assessment. The bldg was not fully involved, all 47 stories were not on fire.

Wow I am impressed you read all those fire fighters statements so quickly and then deduced they were all wrong.

Have you thought about telling those that were there they got it all wrong and you know better?

[newton3376]

Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event.

You dont say.....

People who are going through a traumatic event might EXAGGERATE? Really? They might make some misleading comments? Say it ain't so....

I wonder if some of these "people" might also use things like simile, hyperbole, or metaphor in addition to exaggeration while going through a traumatic event....

I just wonder....

[johnny karate]

Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses.


And yet in a thread discussing the possiblity of the presence of explosives in the WTC buildings, you made the following statement after being told repeatedly that no one there explicitly stated they experienced explosives:
Now, this is just a shameless and transparent attempt to minimize any eyewitness account which might not support your side of the argument.

So after hanging an entire argument on eyewitness testimony, you suddenly think its important to properly contextualize it.


People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event.

Which is a complete 180 from this statement:
Sure, weeks, months, maybe years later, these people were informed of what the source of their initial descriptions were, but as any detective worth his/her salt knows, it's always the first interview which is most important. How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account.

You said this when arguing that eyewitness testimony possibly supports a controlled demolition theory.

So Red, please explain why you hold a different standard for eyewitness testimony that might support your arguments from that which doesn't?

Because from where I'm sitting, you appear to be an intellectually dishonest hypocrite and a fraud.

[fitzgibbon]

Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event.

The CIT boys seem to be at odds with you on that point. Their whole claim to fame is based on "eyewitnesses"

[RedIbis]

The CIT boys seem to be at odds with you on that point. Their whole claim to fame is based on "eyewitnesses"

I don't follow their work.

[HyJinX]

Hey Red...any comment on post #42?

[Justin39640]

Ok, first show me a photo of smoke pouring from every floor of WTC 7. Next explain how "severe structural damage" contributed to the collapse of the bldg. Be forewarned, NIST will not support your explanation.

Sure, but according to NIST,the fire never burned out of control on more than six lower floors.

And even more importantly, NIST admits that the fires weren't extraordinarily hot, but the collapse occurs because floor-span systems thermally expanded at temps “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings."

In short, WTC 7 was never the raging, completely involved inferno that has often been claimed here.

Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event.

I don't fault them, but NIST simply does not agree with their assessment. The bldg was not fully involved, all 47 stories were not on fire.

ahem...
K0CU-teE0bQ

[FineWine]

I try not to indulge false analogies, but as it appears your only defense left, I encourage you to read this interesting article about the Columbia shuttle disaster. Consider how the two events (WTC 7 collapse and subsequent investigation and the Columbia) are similar and how they are different and why you should abandon this as a tactic defending NIST's evidence bereft report.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2004/jan/11/features.magazine67


You have yet to explain why you are qualified to invalidate the computer simulations produced by people who are much smarter than you and who know much, much more. There is a clear disagreement here. One the one hand, real structural engineers, physicists, and fire safety experts rely on computer simulations. On the other, poorly educated, agenda-driven cranks argue that such simulations are worthless. What do the fools know that the experts don't?

[triforcharity]

Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event.

I don't fault them, but NIST simply does not agree with their assessment. The bldg was not fully involved, all 47 stories were not on fire.

Firefighter's don't make it a habbit of lying under oath. Its called Ethics, dignity, honor, respect, and most of all, responsibility. We aren't going to lie when it comes to something like this. Nor anything else for that matter.

When we pull up to a building, it is typically considered "fully involved" if there are flame coming out of more than 10 windows on a certain floor. Or maybe even 5 windows over 2 floors. Whatever the case may be, you obviously have not the first clue of firefighting. Please stop pretending that you do.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by RedIbis
Sure, weeks, months, maybe years later, these people were informed of what the source of their initial descriptions were, but as any detective worth his/her salt knows, it's always the first interview which is most important. How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account.

So, they should have been seperating people from each other and taking statements that VERY day?? That seems kinda silly. And unreasonable to even expect that. We sat around while taking breaks and the only topics were:

Who's missing
What happened
When can we bomb the ever living (Rule12) out of them for doing this.


So, as you can tell, we spent many hours talking to each other about our experiences that day. So, are you sure that you waanna stick to your opinion???

[triforcharity]

You have yet to explain why you are qualified to invalidate the computer simulations produced by people who are much smarter than you and who know much, much more. There is a clear disagreement here. One the one hand, real structural engineers, physicists, and fire safety experts rely on computer simulations. On the other, poorly educated, agenda-driven cranks argue that such simulations are worthless. What do the fools know that the experts don't?


Great point. When I took some remiedial (sp?) classes on fire science, the simulators we used to learn more about the effects of fire were quite complex. I loved working with these systems. They are quite cool, and very accurate.

Now, would RedIbis like to explain how they know that unfought fire, in a steel framed building would be safe from collapse?? Even almost 15 years ago, when I went through fire school, we knew that fire + steel framed building= not safe, possible failure of building. Were we taught something that wasn't true???

[RedIbis]

Firefighter's don't make it a habbit of lying under oath. Its called Ethics, dignity, honor, respect, and most of all, responsibility. We aren't going to lie when it comes to something like this. Nor anything else for that matter.

When we pull up to a building, it is typically considered "fully involved" if there are flame coming out of more than 10 windows on a certain floor. Or maybe even 5 windows over 2 floors. Whatever the case may be, you obviously have not the first clue of firefighting. Please stop pretending that you do.

I think your avatar should have an asterisk next to it.

[Justin39640]

I think your avatar should have an asterisk next to it.

i guess you saw the video i posted...
a lot of smoke eh?

[triforcharity]

Meaning???? You cannot refute what I have posted?? How much of that did you or did you not understand.

Too many big words for you??

[Grizzly Bear]

Now, would RedIbis like to explain how they know that unfought fire, in a steel framed building would be safe from collapse?? Even almost 15 years ago, when I went through fire school, we knew that fire + steel framed building= not safe, possible failure of building. Were we taught something that wasn't true???

Redibis is a bit of a mysterious guy... When he talked about the Columbia incident -- despite it being the first ever incident of a foam impact setting the seeds for a fatal atmosphere reentry he thought it possible by precedents which had before then never been fatal:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4244663#post4244663
Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"

But god forbid if it's fire in a building... oh no... even though steel has been significantly damaged or failed in previous fires it's absolutely not possible for it to result in the complete collapse of a building. Even when he complains about thermal expansion which caused a bridge to collapse (http://www.exponent.com/bridge_girder_failure_during_construction/)


Redibis ignores this sample of his hypocrisy and intentional distortion like the plague... like he does every other sample people spot...

[johnny karate]

So Red, please explain why you hold a different standard for eyewitness testimony that might support your arguments from that which doesn't?

Bump for RedIbis.

[Edx]

In short, WTC 7 was never the raging, completely involved inferno that has often been claimed here.



So the firefighters are in on it? I know you never want to be specific in saying they are lying, but you as essentially saying they are all lying.