Graeme MacQueen Debunks Mackey & Roberts

[Galileo]

The BBC program comes out on Sunday, so I thought I'd get a leg up and post this here:

Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories
Prof. Graeme MacQueen
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf

This is a great article. It totally debunks the idea put out by MacKey and Roberts that the WTC 7 foreknowledge was a rational thing for the firemen because of all the fire and debris damage.

This article shows that only 7 firemen actually made observations that they thought WTC 7 would fall, while 50 "were told" it would fall. These 7 firemen sound very confused and paranoid, and contradict NIST, who still doesn't know why WTC 7 fell seven years later.

MacQueen also finds that a majority of the firemen "definitely" thought WTC 7 would fall. Really, they knew definitely?

16 thought WTC 7 would fall more than 2 hours before it did, while 6 thought it would fall more than 4 hours before it did. Wow!

None of this makes any sense at all, unless it were a controlled demolition, with a cover story being put out by Giuliani's office and/or some "engineering type person".

 

[Grizzly Bear]

MacQueen also finds that a majority of the firemen "definitely" thought WTC 7 would fall. Really, they knew definitely?

16 thought WTC 7 would fall more than 2 hours before it did, while 6 thought it would fall more than 4 hours before it did. Wow!

None of this makes any sense at all, unless it were a controlled demolition, with a cover story being put out by Giuliani's office and/or some "engineering type person".

Wow, 16 thought it would fall 4 hours before it collapsed? 6 thought it would 2 hours before the collapse. Were they clairvoyants giving exact times? Where they saying it would collapse in 2 hours or 4 hours? I'm not sure what this proves... if anything at all... if they were concerned it would collapse and it did does it not only confirm the very legitimate concerns for safety they had?

 

[MarkyX]

Did MacQueen interviewed any of the firefighters he quoted? No? He is quote mining then.

Hell, considering MacQueen is a Canadian in Ontario, he could've interviewed the local fire departments. Oh wait, he doesn't trust his own countrymen either?

EDIT: Googled his name and this came up: http://www.skydragon.org/html/graeme.html

Graeme MacQueen is a member of the Religious Studies Department at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, where he is currently Associate Professor. His academic specialization is Buddhist Studies, in which he received his doctorate from Harvard University.

Great, a Canadian David Ray Griffin.

 

[Hyperviolet]

16 thought WTC 7 would fall more than 2 hours before it did, while 6 thought it would fall more than 4 hours before it did. Wow!

Quick question regarding this statement:
Why the "wow"?

It seems to me that that would indicate that 4 hours prior to collapse, the building was looking in bad condition, raising the suspicions of a possible collapse amongst a few firemen, and 2 hours later the building's integrity was in very serious doubt, which led to further concerns about the very real possibility of collapse.

Where's the anomaly?

 

[JamesB]

The most bizarre logic. "Only" 7 firefighters thought it was going to fall from the fire and damage. Yeah, OK, well that is 7 more than thought it was going to fall from controlled demolition.

 

[johnny karate]

This article shows that only 7 firemen actually made observations that they thought WTC 7 would fall, while 50 "were told" it would fall. These 7 firemen sound very confused and paranoid, and contradict NIST, who still doesn't know why WTC 7 fell seven years later.

So why haven't any of these firefighters that were merely "told" WTC7 was coming down come forward to express even the slightest doubts or suspicions regarding the official version of events?

 

[Dog Town]

WoW! Another big FAIL thread by the G.
Happy "See ya... Tea Bag Day"!

 

[~enigma~]

Only fail I have seen worse than this...

 

[applecorped]

Anti-Troother billboard:

 

[R.Mackey]

Welcome to six months ago.

I've heard it said that insanity is doing the same stupid thing over and over again, yet expecting different results.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Just wanted to excerpt stuff from Mackey's earlier post that he links above for those who don't click through:

Even if we assume just about all the firefighters were robots, believing whatever they were told, never once even bothering to look at WTC 7 on their own, we still have a few members of the FDNY who stick to their guns...

... These men aren't just agreeing that WTC 7 was in trouble. They're expressing their own feelings about it, and even explaining why. Hayden was not merely "told" about the structural deformation, he saw it and even quantified it. Personally.

And:

Mr. McQueen's "rebuttal" is somewhat circular. It also involves false dilemma, viz. it assumes a firefighter could only either be told or reach his own conclusion, and not a mixture of the two...

This is really the key point, and I think the opposition either missed it or hid from it. If I was a firefighter, I would expect to have been told that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. Firefighters are not a rag-tag collection of freelance, independent operators who make their own decisions. It's a dangerous job and it requires teamwork. Teamwork requires communication, even of things that should be obvious.

What's missing, both in Mr. McQueen's analysis, and in the credulous opposition here, is any evidence at all that firefighters disagreed with what they were told.

Go ahead, show me a firefighter that said, "Oh, yeah, our battalion chief said that WTC 7 could fall, but I thought he was nuts. It didn't look too bad. I don't know why we just stood around for five hours watching it burn." There are no such accounts, no matter what kind of special pleading you employ. You can attempt to cast doubt on a statement here or there, but you cannot throw out all of it, and unless you do, whatever remains supports my position.

 

[gumboot]

Number of flaws here...

Firstly, who are these seven? Well at least one of them is the man who was the FDNY commander on the scene. He ordered the establishment of a collapse zone, and he has repeatedly said he felt it highly likely WTC7 would collapse.

Secondly, why did these seven feel it would collapse? Well, due to the extensive damage and fires they witnessed. And while only a small number might have said they felt WTC7 was going to collapse (in actual fact only a very small number of FDNY personnel mention WTC7 in their oral histories at all...) a much, much larger number of firemen confirm in their oral histories the extent of damage, and fires, which collaborates the claims of these seven firemen.

Which ever way you look at it, the FDNY oral histories are substantial evidence that WTC7 had suffered extensive structural damage, was heavily involved in flames, and therefore was in a very critical condition.

 

[Confuseling]

Welcome to six months ago.

I've heard it said that insanity is doing the same stupid thing over and over again, yet expecting different results.

Better describes being a flying insect, I always reckoned...

(not that I have much in the way of personal experience)

 

[leftysergeant]

I take issue with McQueen on several points. First of all, I have better credentials than he to address anything relating to what the various sounds one hears on a fire scene might mean. Those statements of his relating to explosions heard or seen on the day of the attack are flat out stupid. He concludes, even with cars cooking off in the streets that every mention of an explosion is probable cause to suspect that a bomb had been planted somewhere. OY!

There were fire fighters who had trouble with the collapse zone order, but not because they did not think that WTC 7 was doomed. They were bothered that they could not begin searching the rubble within that collapse zone for their missing brothers. THAT is in the oral histories. McQueen needs to learn to read critically. The conclusions he reaches from the oral histories, if he has read them, other than to data mine for the words "explosion" or "bomb," leads me to wonder how fit he is even to teach Buddhism.

 

[stilicho]

Great, a Canadian David Ray Griffin.

Speaking as a Canadian, I am mildly offended, but you are right.

I really would like people who mistrust the FDNY to go read the bulk of those oral histories. They are both fascinating and macabre. I did run across a few of the mined quotes but the overwhelming tone is of confusion and horror.

People such as McQueen may not realise it but they are explicitly accusing hundreds of first responders of lying and/or covering up.

If there were an inferno, I know there is a special place reserved for McQueen and Griffin.

 

[gtc]

These 7 firemen sound very confused and paranoid, and contradict NIST, who still doesn't know why WTC 7 fell seven years later.

Saying a building is about to fall down is not paranoia if the building subsequantly falls down.

 

[1337m4n]

MacQueen also finds that a majority of the firemen "definitely" thought WTC 7 would fall. Really, they knew definitely?

So wait. If the firemen DIDN'T know that the building was going to fall, it proves inside job, but if they DID know that the building was going to fall, it proves inside job?



Somebody help me out here; this "logic" is baffling me.

 

[PhantomWolf]

These 7 firemen sound very confused and paranoid, and contradict NIST, who still doesn't know why WTC 7 fell seven years later.

I have to wonder why it is a supposed contridiction? If I see a plane falling out of the sky, its engines smoking and say, "that plane is about to crash," it doesn't contradict the air crash investigators if they say they have a working hypothesis but as of yet aren't sure of the details of why it crashed.

As to the "7 years" and I noticed that Gage used the same claim with Mark on Hardfire, NIST hasn't been working on the Building 7 report for 7 years, they didn't start it until they finished the Building 1 & 2 reports so at most they have spent 3 years on it.

 

[Quad4_72]

Galileo this is pretty bad stuff here. Reading your post is like injecting highly concentrated FAIL directly into my eyeballs.

 

[Bobert]

NOBODY has disproven that 1 million hungry NWO piranha were planted at the base of WTC 7 and ate away at the base, NOBODY!
YOU ARE PWNED!!