Message from discussion 9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days"
Received: by 10.66.86.39 with SMTP id m7mr4852521paz.4.1350480144064;
Wed, 17 Oct 2012 06:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: 9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days"
Date: 15 Oct 2012 21:23:52 -0400
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <caeruleo-66D8FC.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <caeruleo-D1CFC9.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
X-Original-Trace: 15 Oct 2012 14:58:22 -0500, 22.214.171.124
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1350350631 126.96.36.199 (15 Oct 2012 20:23:51 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 15 Oct 2012 20:23:51 -0500, 188.8.131.52
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/15/2012 3:35 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 10/10/2012 9:38 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > snip! <
>>> Well now wait a minute. I know the main intent of that is to dispute
>>> official explanation. However, it also suggests the possibility of an
>>> alternate explanation, if not for why WTC 7 collapsed, then at least for
>>> the order to evacuate. They had had such terrible loss of life already.
>>> The two large towers had already collapsed many hours earlier. The
>>> earliest estimates were that thousands of people had been killed, and
>>> indeed though the early estimates which much higher than the reality,
>>> final death toll still remained in the thousands, plural. Nothing even
>>> remotely like this had ever happened in a single day in any American
>>> in the entire history of this country. And more than 100 firefighters
>>> alone had already been lost on this single day. Why does the evacuation
>>> order necessarily need to be motivated by an advance knowledge of the
>>> the building would collapse? This does at least confirm that there was
>>> indeed a raging fire in the building, and given the horrific death toll
>>> that had already happened that morning, I'm not sure I blame them for
>>> finally deciding to cut their losses and evacuate the building due to
>>> fire alone, and not necessarily due to any suspicion at that time that
>>> this building might also collapse.
>> The building had already been evacuated several hours earlier. The
>> final decision was to pull down the building in a controlled way so
>> that it would not damage any surrounding buildings.
> Ha ha. You don't "pull down" a 47-story building. It wouldn't even enter
> your mind. That's not the appropriate term in such a case.
Stop misrepresenting. I didn't say "pull down." Silverstein didn't say
"pull down." I' not sure what your trick is called in Latin, but I know
that I am not allowed to say what it is called in English.
> Check out the use of your precious word "pull" in the quote from Chief
> Daniel Nigro of the FDNY below, and especially (a more serious matter,
> the "pull the building" argument is just as silly as harping on the fact
> that Oswald, caught nearly red-handed, claimed to be a "patsy") check
> out the timeline below, from
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7437516.stm (but
> the page is quoting NIST, so you'll no doubt say it's just the dadgummed
> gummint...!). Let's pick it up at 3pm:
> <quote on>
> Around 1500 Chief Daniel Nigro of FDNY takes the decision to make an
> evacuation zone around Tower 7 in case of collapse.
> Everybody is pulled away and rescue efforts in this zone are stopped,
> Nigro later says: "The biggest decision was to make an evacuation zone
> around building seven, to pull everyone away to stop the rescue efforts
> that were going on which was very difficult to do because there were
> people trapped still and to step back, to step back and wait."
> According to Nist: "Around 3pm fires were observed on floors 7 and 12
> along the north face. The fire on floor 12 appeared to bypass the
> northeast corner and was first observed at a point approximately one
> third of the width of the building from the northeast corner, and then
> spread both east and west across the north face." (Nist interim report
> on WTC 7, Chapter 1. Page 18 )
> After 1500 "Sometime later [than 3pm], fires were observed on floors 8
> and 13 with the fire on floor 8 moving from west to east and the fire on
> floor 13 moving from east to west. At this time, the fire on floor 7
> appeared to have stopped progressing near the middle of the north face.
> "The fire on floor 8 continued to move east on the north face,
> eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face."
> (NIST interim report on WTC 7, Chapter 1. Page 18)
> Around 1645 "Around 4.45pm a photograph showed fires on floors 7, 8, 9,
> and 11 near the middle; floor 12 was burned out by this time. Interview
> responses indicate that there was no water in the standpipe system
> supplying the sprinklers in WTC 7." (Nist interim report on WTC 7,
> Chapter 1. Page 18 )
> 1721 World Trade Centre 7 collapses. (Nist L - 17) Nist interim report
> on WTC 7. Appendix L.1.7)
> Two and a half hours after the evacuation order (which would be before
> everyone was evacuated) was given. I don't call that "several" hours
> (although it is two and a *half*).
> The order was "to pull everyone away to stop the rescue efforts,"
> meaning a crew of firemen was still engaged when the order was given.
SPAM. No Latin phrase for that.