Question for truthers: what constitutes reliable FDNY testimony?

[CHF]

It's obvious from the Schroeder interview that a guy with bad memory who doesn't know what he was hearing but is willing to guess...that apparently constitutes reliable testimony in the eyes of truthers.

But I'm curious as to what truthers make of testimony from Fire Chief Daniel Nigro who said WTC7 was heavily damaged and in danger of collapse; or all those other FDNY who said WTC7 was going to come down due to its weakened state.

Can someone please explain to me how FDNY testimony is judged? What's reliable and what isn't?

Members should not post anything other than their own responses. Please don't encourage members to post on behalf of non-members.

[Pardalis]

Oh, if I may add that someone saying "something was not right that day" doesn't cut it. Of course something was wrong that day.

[Undesired Walrus]

Back door draft explosions = bombs

Over 150 quotes about how WTC7 was in danger of collapse = misguided

Chief Vincent Dunne mentioning CTers being 'ridiculed' by the FDNY = Bad for Dylan

[Revolutionary91]

Numerous firefighters who arent structural engineers predict an unprecedented collapse and thats reliable but numerous firefighters describe molten steel and thats unreliable because they aren't metallurgists lol

[T.A.M.]

well I am sure they have seen alot more unsteady, near collapsed buildings in their past as FIREFIGHTERS, than they have MOLTEN STEEL...

TAM:)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Numerous firefighters who arent structural engineers predict an unprecedented collapse and thats reliable but numerous firefighters describe molten steel and thats unreliable because they aren't metallurgists lol


Well a firefighter must know the structure of a building before going inside them to fight a fire.

Molten steel? Where's the evidence of this claim? And don't be showing me a picture of the firemen around a glowing light from within the rubble. That picture just shows them looking for people who might have survived.

[defaultdotxbe]

Numerous firefighters who arent structural engineers predict an unprecedented collapse and thats reliable but numerous firefighters describe molten steel and thats unreliable because they aren't metallurgists lol
firefighters are trained to assess the soundness of a burning building, its part of their job

firefighters are not trained to tell the difference between molten steel, molten copper, molten aluminum, or molten glass, thats not part of their job

[Alt+F4]

Numerous firefighters who arent structural engineers predict an unprecedented collapse and thats reliable but numerous firefighters describe molten steel and thats unreliable because they aren't metallurgists lol

Have you ever personally spoken to a member of the FDNY who was on duty on 9/11/2001 or the months afterwards?

I HAVE.

Have you ever done any 9/11 research that didn't 100% rely on the Internet?

I HAVE.

[Revolutionary91]

well I am sure they have seen alot more unsteady, near collapsed buildings in their past as FIREFIGHTERS, than they have MOLTEN STEEL...

TAM:)

Really? Please list all the large buildings in New York that have completely collapsed before 911.

[defaultdotxbe]

Really? Please list all the large buildings in New York that have completely collapsed before 911.
does the opposite not hold true though?

they said they saw molten steel, so it must have been molten steel because their firefighters and wouldnt lie

they said the building was fully involved with fire, with massive structural damage and was in danager of collapse, but no, it was barely on fire, no damage and wouldnt have collapsed without explosives

[Pardalis]

Really? Please list all the large buildings in New York that have completely collapsed before 911.

Leading question maybe? :rolleyes:

[qarnos]

Numerous firefighters who arent structural engineers predict an unprecedented collapse and thats reliable

Yes.

Seeing a building such as WTC7 in the state was it in does not require an engineering degree to see that something is seriously wrong. Add to that that two other buildings had already collapsed, and it's not hard to see why they thought it might happen.

but numerous firefighters describe molten steel and thats unreliable because they aren't metallurgists lol

Molten metal - not molten steel. "Steel" in this case is likely being used as a synonym for "metal". I know of no-one who can take a quick glance at molten metal and determine what kind of metal it is.

[TerryUK]

Really? Please list all the large buildings in New York that have completely collapsed before 911.

Yes, and while your about it, show all buildings that collapsed in a similar fashion to the WTC7, and you'll see that they were all 'controlled demolitions'

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes, and while your about it, show all buildings that collapsed in a similar fashion to the WTC7, and you'll see that they were all 'controlled demolitions'
and all planes that had crashed into buildings were just accidents, so apparently this whole terrorism vs inside job debate is all just one big misunderstanding

[TerryUK]

and all planes that had crashed into buildings were just accidents, so apparently this whole terrorism vs inside job debate is all just one big misunderstanding

Your logic is false.
There is, and was, before 911, good reason to believe that planes can be deliberately crashed into buildings...But there is no good reason at all to believe that buildings can collapse in the manner that WTC7 did, without a demolition.

Edit: Maybe that's why they are having difficulties in coming up with a credible report even after six years...

[T.A.M.]

Really? Please list all the large buildings in New York that have completely collapsed before 911.

where did I say "Completely Collapsed" Rev...you can read right?

How about you Terry, you having trouble reading as well?

TAM:)

[PhantomWolf]

Please list all the ones that completely collapsed on 9/11....

BTW how do you visually determine the difference between molten lead, molten aluminium, and molten steel?

[cloudshipsrule]

But there is no good reason at all to believe that buildings can collapse in the manner that WTC7 did, without a demolition.


But there IS good reason to believe that if there were 100 identical buildings, constructed exactly like WTC7, they would fail in similar ways if they were subjected to the same raining-down of tons of debris and hours of intense fire.

[parky76]

No one here doubts that the FDNY saw, felt, and heard explosions. But no one from the FDNY has claimed that they saw a bomb and then the bomb went off. Lots of things go boom. Only in the mind of a conspiracy theorist does explosion=bomb.

Have 9-11 Deniers ever considered all the possible explenations as to what could have caused explosions? This is what a true critical thinker does..and the answer is "NO".

This is the reason why 9-11 Deniers are not critical thinkers. They have a pre-determined outcome and theory already in their minds..and they will ignore ALL and ANY evidence which contradicts their pre-determined theory and outcome.

How do I know this is true? Ask any 9-11 Denier "what evidence would you need to see to believe that 9-11 was NOT an inside job?" and they will always answer "nothing...9-11 was an inside job".

[defaultdotxbe]

Your logic is false.
and yours isnt?

But there is no good reason at all to believe that buildings can collapse in the manner that WTC7 did, without a demolition.
and why is that? on what are you basing this statement?

[Drudgewire]

Edit: Maybe that's why they are having difficulties in coming up with a credible report even after six years...
There's never going to be a credible report in the eyes of truthers that doesn't have controlled demolition as the cause.

How do I know this is true? Ask any 9-11 Denier "what evidence would you need to see to believe that 9-11 was NOT an inside job?" and they will always answer "nothing...9-11 was an inside job".

And this is why.

[Redtail]

Your logic is false.
There is, and was, before 911, good reason to believe that planes can be deliberately crashed into buildings...But there is no good reason at all to believe that buildings can collapse in the manner that WTC7 did, without a demolition.

Edit: Maybe that's why they are having difficulties in coming up with a credible report even after six years...

Except for that pesky no recording of CD charges even though every news agency that had a camera and a mic was in the area.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Your logic is false.
There is, and was, before 911, good reason to believe that planes can be deliberately crashed into buildings...But there is no good reason at all to believe that buildings can collapse in the manner that WTC7 did, without a demolition.

Edit: Maybe that's why they are having difficulties in coming up with a credible report even after six years...

So far in 6 years nothing ever came up about a demolition on 9/11.

Interesting! :rolleyes:

[CHF]

Numerous firefighters who arent structural engineers predict an unprecedented collapse and thats reliable but numerous firefighters describe molten steel and thats unreliable because they aren't metallurgists lol

Only in Twoofer Land is a building at risk of collapse just as easy to get wrong as identifying metal types in a molten state. Sort of like how eyewitnesses can accurately judge what causes explosions yet cannot be trusted to accurately say what they just saw slam into the Pentagon.

Tell me Rev, what do you think is more reliable: Schroeder's testimony or Nigro's testimony?

[qarnos]

Edit: Maybe that's why they are having difficulties in coming up with a credible report even after six years...

Oh, come on! If 9/11 was an inside job, don't you think they would have sorted out their collapse reasons before the attacks?

Sometimes science takes time. There's more to it than watching YouTube videos.

[PhantomWolf]

Edit: Maybe that's why they are having difficulties in coming up with a credible report even after six years...

hehe, I like this, over in another thread we're being told that it was an inside job because they knew so fast how WTC 1 & 2 come down (despite the fact that the initial thoughts on the collapses turnned out to be wrong.) Here we're being told that it has to have been an inside job because they are taking so long to get their story straight...... I really wish the Truthers would sort their story out.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2847489#post2847489)
Really? Please list all the large buildings in New York that have completely collapsed before 911.Assuming he means buildings that were constructed with good fire resistance in mind, the first one that comes to mind is the New York Crystal Palace. It stood where today's Bryant Park is.

The vast iron and glass exhibition hall was considered fireproof.

When it caught fire in 1858, its dome – the largest in the western world – fell in 15 minutes and the rest of the building followed 10 minutes later, leaving only a small wing standing. The card below shows a portion of the building.

http://www.ephemeroi.com/stuff/2005/front/050325-cp6.jpg

[Revolutionary91]

Assuming he means buildings that were constructed with good fire resistance in mind, the first one that comes to mind is the New York Crystal Palace. It stood where today's Bryant Park is.

The vast iron and glass exhibition hall was considered fireproof.

When it caught fire in 1858, its dome – the largest in the western world – fell in 15 minutes and the rest of the building followed 10 minutes later, leaving only a small wing standing. The card below shows a portion of the building.

http://www.ephemeroi.com/stuff/2005/front/050325-cp6.jpg



Hey einstein, my point was in relation to the experience of those particular firefighters. Were they alive in 1858?

[CHF]

The floor trusses, Rev. Why'd they pull in on the columns? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89640)

[nicepants]

How do I know this is true? Ask any 9-11 Denier "what evidence would you need to see to believe that 9-11 was NOT an inside job?" and they will always answer "nothing...9-11 was an inside job".

This is a condition known as Ignoramous Nine-elevenomous. It's most pronounced among truthers who generate some type of revenue due to the belief that there was a 9/11 conspiracy, or those who desire to generate this revenue.

[NYCEMT86]

Numerous firefighters who arent structural engineers predict an unprecedented collapse and thats reliable but numerous firefighters describe molten steel and thats unreliable because they aren't metallurgists lol

This is the description of the Firefighter I course offered at the NYS Fire Academy (http://www.dos.state.ny.us/fire/residential.html)

1S Firefighter I

As the initial entry program for firefighting personnel, Firefighter I introduces firefighting concepts, practices and techniques necessary for success within the fire service. Based on the Firefighter Level I objectives from NFPA Standard 1001, this course develops knowledge, skills and abilities based on performance criteria for the following topics: fire department organization, firefighter safety, fire behavior, personal protective equipment, self-contained breathing apparatus, fire extinguishers, building searches, forcible entry, ground ladders, ventilation, hose practices, fire streams, and loss control.

The course consists of performance criteria in: incident command, building construction, ropes/knots, rescue procedures, forcible entry applications, ventilation practices, fire extinguisher applications, suppression of structural fires, tactics, vehicle suppression, water supply, loss control, fire cause determination, fire department communications, fire suppression systems, hazardous materials, weapons of mass destruction, confined space safety and fire prevention practices.


What the Houston Fire Department have to say about building construction? (http://www.houstontx.gov/fire/firefighterinfo/ce/1999/May/Fire%20Fighter%20Safefy.html)


What does the 3rd Chapter cover in the IFSTA 4th Edition of Essentials of Firefighting? (http://www.ifsta.org/html/catalog/36041.htm)


Why don't you read my thread on Basic Principles of Building Construction...

[strathmeyer]

Really? Please list all the large buildings in New York that have completely collapsed before 911.

Please provide a list of skyscrapers that were hit by jumbo jets and did not collapse. Which list is bigger? I wonder why. I just can't figure it out. I don't have the mental capacity to draw a simple conclusion from these facts. They make my brain hurt, so maybe I'll just go be a jerk to a bunch of people on a message board somewhere.

[Par]

Really? Please list all the large buildings in New York that have completely collapsed before 911.



The specification of the condition that they must be “in New York” is a patently illegitimate attempt to arbitrarily exclude potentially salient examples.

[LashL]

The specification of the condition that they must be “in New York” is a patently illegitimate attempt to arbitrarily exclude potentially salient examples.

You will not be surprised to know that virtually every one of Revolutionary91's posts are textbook examples of various and sundry logical fallacies (too numerous to mention), moving goalposts, seagull-itis, non sequiturs, bizarre subject changes, off topic posts, uninformed and unsupported nonsense, quote-mining, copying and pasting without actually comprehending or analyzing what he's copying and pasting, flights of fancy, starting multiple threads and then running away from them, plugging-the-ears-while-shouting-lalalalalala-and-refusing-to-become-informed about the very subjects on which he opines, and ignoring everything that does not fit into the narrow, juvenile, and cultish mindset that he has adopted.

In other words, typical twoofer troll behaviour.

Trolls (twoofer and otherwise) bring nothing to the table and are probably best ignored.

Perhaps after summer vacation is over and the recent crop of twoofer trolls begin high school, there will be a higher calibre of twoofer, with something of substance to discuss ~ but I won't hold my breath.

[Revolutionary91]

The specification of the condition that they must be “in New York” is a patently illegitimate attempt to arbitrarily exclude potentially salient examples.

Why would I want to include examples outside New York? I was responding to him talking about the experience of those particular firefighters. He claims they are used to gaugeing collapse so im asking for examples they might have seen. Durrr.

[The Doc]

You will not be surprised to know that virtually every one of Revolutionary91's posts are textbook examples of various and sundry logical fallacies (too numerous to mention), moving goalposts...

A truly textbook example of moving goal posts.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2861764#post2861764

[A W Smith]

Numerous firefighters who arent structural engineers predict an unprecedented collapse and thats reliable but numerous firefighters describe molten steel and thats unreliable because they aren't metallurgists lol


It is the fire marshals that enforce and inspect fire protection and recommend code to engineers , architects, builders, and developers. Without their sign off I wouldn't get C of O's on the projects I work on. They know the nature of fire, they know the path fires take. they know how long it takes for assembly's to burn. it is their profession to walk through these structures as they burn. But being a child and not being in the industry Like i have for over 30 years. you wouldn't know that.

[gumboot]

I've never heard of anyone from the FDNY reporting molten steel at the WTC site. Anyone care to provide a source for this rather surprising claim?

-Gumboot

[nicepants]

hehe, I like this, over in another thread we're being told that it was an inside job because they knew so fast how WTC 1 & 2 come down (despite the fact that the initial thoughts on the collapses turnned out to be wrong.) Here we're being told that it has to have been an inside job because they are taking so long to get their story straight...... I really wish the Truthers would sort their story out.

Twoofers are all about contradiction....just look at this link from infowars (http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/history_channel_back_peddles_on_911_hit_piece.htm) about the upcoming history channel special on 9/11 conspiracies.

First they complained to the history channel saying that they were being biased against conspiracies.

Now they're attacking the history channel for "back-pedaling" in changing the show description to be less critical.