If you mean “off”, then you’re wrong - I suss that “JAQing off” is an acceptable phrase in GD, as it refers to the argumentive tactic of asking endless questions, not taking answers for an answer, and then pretending that there’s something meaningful about all the ‘unanswered questions’. (The manner in which the activity satisfies nobody but the questioner is another layer of meaning behind the term.) Regardless, the reason I did not say “JAQing-offers” was merely because it sounded dumb, not becuase I thought it was unacceptable.
If you meant “ass”, then you’re simply wrong - that’s not the term.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled question-fest.
The fact that the twin towers were tall and had fallen fast had nothing to do with expectations that WTC7 would fall, aside from the tangential fact a piece of rubble from one of them had damaged the building and set it on fire. After all, there were many other buildings around and, despite the fact that the towers were still fallen and had still fallen fast nobody expected any of them to spontaneously collapse.
And if the two buildings had not been involved and this had been an inferno caused by a bomb the fire department would have had the resources and water pressure to put it out, duh. Unless you’re saying that the fire would still go unfought, but the fire deparment would be saying, “Sure, the building is a fireball, but it will stand, because it won’t fall because buildings only actually collapse if taller buildings collapse fast first.” Is that what you’re saying?
I’ll type a little slower so the mentally-challenged can follow along.
If the conditions involved in the collapse of WTC7 occurred without anything having happened to towers 1 and 2… I mean all the conditions: a big chunk taken out of part of the building, raging fires, and no water to fight them with, what would have caused any firefighters on the scene to believe it was going to come down so dramatically? It’s obvious normal firefighters on the ground didn’t think it was going to come tumbling down, otherwise they wouldn’t have needed to be told to clear the area.
Saying that though, the reality that 2 buildings had already fallen killing many members of the emergency services, everyone had been evacuated from WTC7 anyway, and there was no water to fight the fires with, makes me wonder why there were firefighters still hanging around near there?
The building was visibly warping. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that this says something pretty bad about the integrity of the building.
Show me any signs of that, from the angle that everyone is familiar with. One thing I have noticed on that clip is a line of windows extending down several floors, all exploding outwards at the same time. Now, I can understand compressed air squibs appearing below the line of collapse, but I find it a lot more difficult to believe that a collapse from the other end would only push out those windows.
The answer is in CurtC’s post above. The building was visibly bulging, suggesting that its structural integrity had been serious compromised.
Unless the jeopardy is obvious and unambiguous, firefighters on the ground rely on their superiors to make the call on how hopeless or dangerous a situation is. They don’t each decide on their own to pull back – they take orders from the higher-ups, who, presumably because they can see the big picture and have more experience, are in a better position to judge the situation. Remember, it took WTC 7 several hours to fall down after the firefighters were pulled out. It wasn’t a case of “Oh shit, it’s falling! Run!” but of “The chief thinks this building is a lost cause and may collapse soon. Everyone out.”
Notice that it comes down in an almost perfectly straight line until it reaches the level of the white building on the left. Does that seem normal for a building asymmetrically damaged by fire and slight structural damage?
Okay, warning recognised. I hope you are also going to apply that ruling to anyone who continues to refer to me as a “truther”, with all that description implies?
ps. I don’t mind anybody calling me a “Questioner”.
I think it would be a total waste of time to try explaining what would or would not be normal in that situation because it is quite clear that your version of “normal” doesn’t correspond with that of most others here.
What’s “obvious” to your trooth-addled mind is not obvious to some of the bravest men in the world. My brother is firefighter and one of my biggest fears is that he’ll rush into a building one day knowing it’s going to come down, with the slightest hope of getting one last person out. I know him, and I know he’d do it. But of course you people always come around to blaming rescue because none of your insane fantasies make a lick of sense unless they were in on it. It’s beyond disgusting.
Actually, the common understanding of it is someone who is a complete crank, has no grasp of logical thinking, cannot distinguish between truth and lie, hates the USA, is a traitor to all those who died that day, and supports those who want to blow up civilians for no good reason.
Kinda makes a “mentally-challenged” aimed at nobody in particular look a little bit like a compliment.
That’s not the common understanding of the term “truther”; that’s just a common understanding of the position you are taking. It has nothing to do with what one calls such a position or its advocates.