Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

mrtravel wrote in
. com:

TRUTH wrote:

Let me clarify... Regardless of its effect on the fire, the point is
that it was placed in test mode *on the morning of 9/11*.

So? If there was no effect, then what difference does it make.
On the morning of 9/11, I suspect the firemen were more concerned with
WTC 1 and 2. If explosives were used to bring down WTC 1,2, and 7,
what difference would turning off the fire alarm make?




The point is why would they put the alarm in test mode, on 9/11?

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:52:12 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

mrtravel wrote in
.com:

TRUTH wrote:

Let me clarify... Regardless of its effect on the fire, the point is
that it was placed in test mode *on the morning of 9/11*.

So? If there was no effect, then what difference does it make.
On the morning of 9/11, I suspect the firemen were more concerned with
WTC 1 and 2. If explosives were used to bring down WTC 1,2, and 7,
what difference would turning off the fire alarm make?




The point is why would they put the alarm in test mode, on 9/11?

You are the one who keeps claiming this as if it were a significant fact, it
is up to YOU to tell us why it is significant.

TRUTH wrote:
mrtravel wrote in
. com:

TRUTH wrote:
Let me clarify... Regardless of its effect on the fire, the point is
that it was placed in test mode *on the morning of 9/11*.
So? If there was no effect, then what difference does it make.
On the morning of 9/11, I suspect the firemen were more concerned with
WTC 1 and 2. If explosives were used to bring down WTC 1,2, and 7,
what difference would turning off the fire alarm make?




The point is why would they put the alarm in test mode, on 9/11?

Perhaps they had been getting false readings, perhaps it was an
accident, who knows. Not every thing done that day had nefarious intent.
I will give you an example from reality. In the mid 1980s the new fire
alarm system in my hangar had a tendency to go off on hot days for no
reason. We would all run and push the helicopters out to a safe distance
manually, the fire department would send equipment and there was no
fire. After a week of this the base fire chief had us turn the alarm off
whenever the hangar during the hotter times of the day. See? There are
valid reasons.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

The point is why would they put the alarm in test mode, on 9/11?

Because - and this is important - they have to TEST the damned things on
a regular basis. That's why they *have* test modes. And they test them
in the day (because that's when the people doing the testing are
working) and they test them in the morning (because that gives them the
whole rest of the day to find and fix problems).

TRUTH wrote:

mrtravel wrote in
. com:


TRUTH wrote:

Let me clarify... Regardless of its effect on the fire, the point is
that it was placed in test mode *on the morning of 9/11*.

So? If there was no effect, then what difference does it make.
On the morning of 9/11, I suspect the firemen were more concerned with
WTC 1 and 2. If explosives were used to bring down WTC 1,2, and 7,
what difference would turning off the fire alarm make?





The point is why would they put the alarm in test mode, on 9/11?

Why?
If the building is going to be blown up, as you said, how would having
the alarm in test mode help? WTC 1 and WTC 2 were collapsing, do you
think the people in WTC 7 were going to wait for an alarm?