WTC7

[RaptorBites]

I think that WTC 1 + 2 were probably brought down by a Directed Energy Weapon....so that they would fall

into their own footprint and that the damage to the surrounding area would be as minimal as possible.

Direct Energy Weapons?

What is this...i dont even.....

So not only do we have:

1. Missles that were made to look like planes.

2. Thermite

3. Squibs

4. Controlled demolition

Now we have Directed Energy Weapons.

What next? This was all planned by the New World Order who gave the order to the Annunaki who used their telepathic powers to mind control people to beleive that terrorists did all this.

*takes a deep breath*

....

...

..

*hysterical laughing*

..

...

....

Ok that was just....wow.

Im sure that DEW, although has its military uses, could not possible create enough heat to melt or assist in bringing down the towers that day. The range of those weapons aren't made for long distance which would mean that many people would have actually seen those weapons and would have already said something.

Nice try.

Edited January 19, 2012 by RaptorBites

[Babe Ruth]

And how would you be sure of that Raptor? Have you training or expertise in DEW?

I do not, but have read articles claiming the military has been developing such weapons for quite a few years now.

Though according to last week's Aviation Week & Space Technology says that the Airborne Laser (modified Boeing 747) has now been halted and is being disassembled and stored for the future, technically it falls into the DEW category.

[bee]

So not only do we have:

1. Missles that were made to look like planes.

2. Thermite

3. Squibs

4. Controlled demolition

Now we have Directed Energy Weapons.

thankyou for adding DEWs to the list....

Although you might not realise that I don't think 9/11 was an Inside Job.

And I think that everything after the second tower was hit...was intended as damage limitation.

So my ideas about 'the day' involve cover up for political purposes. But not forward planning.

.

[frenat]

And how would you be sure of that Raptor? Have you training or expertise in DEW?

I do not, but have read articles claiming the military has been developing such weapons for quite a few years now.

Though according to last week's Aviation Week & Space Technology says that the Airborne Laser (modified Boeing 747) has now been halted and is being disassembled and stored for the future, technically it falls into the DEW category.

TECHNICALLY it does, but it was only a 1 megawatt class laser and it still needed an entire 747 to power it. A megawatt laser won't bring down a building. It wouldn't even melt the small missles it was designed to bring down. It was only designed to heat them assymetrically so that air turbulence would cause them to break up.

[RaptorBites]

And how would you be sure of that Raptor? Have you training or expertise in DEW?

I do not, but have read articles claiming the military has been developing such weapons for quite a few years now.

Though according to last week's Aviation Week & Space Technology says that the Airborne Laser (modified Boeing 747) has now been halted and is being disassembled and stored for the future, technically it falls into the DEW category.

No I do not have training in DEWs. The fact remains that nobody in the vicinity of the collapse even mentioned those weapons in the vicinity, so the point of even mentioning that DEWs were involved is moot and very bad at best.

Unless of course, you can provide evidence.

[skyeagle409]

And how would you be sure of that Raptor? Have you training or expertise in DEW?

I do not, but have read articles claiming the military has been developing such weapons for quite a few years now.

Though according to last week's Aviation Week & Space Technology says that the Airborne Laser (modified Boeing 747) has now been halted and is being disassembled and stored for the future, technically it falls into the DEW category.

I might add that the laser aboard that aircraft was not capable of bringing down buildings.

[TSS]

The most interesting facet of the WTC7 thing--the way the TV girl announced that it had already happened while it was still standing in the background of her picture--is that it demonstrates very clearly why the "mainstream media" has such a lousy reputation today.

In this case it demonstrates that the media prints and sayw whatever it is told by government authorities. No fact-checking, no skepticism, no nothing but rote repetition. The media is spoonfed by the authorities, and half the population believes whatever the media tells it.

More circumstantial evidence as to the complicity of the media in the coverup and the periphery of the crime. More evidence that the official story is untenable.

Prints whatever the governments tells them do they? This would be the same BBC news organisation that ran and stuck by the Gilligan story naming David Kelly as the source for the 'sexed up dossier' for the Iraq war, the same Iraq war that was used as 9/11 being the excuse, a story which was the single biggest headache for the government of the time, the same government that backed Bush in his ventures....

I think you might want to add your above assumptions as yet another subject you haven't really thought through..

Edited January 19, 2012 by The Sky Scanner

[Q24]

No I do not have training in DEWs. The fact remains that nobody in the vicinity of the collapse even mentioned those weapons in the vicinity, so the point of even mentioning that DEWs were involved is moot and very bad at best.

Unless of course, you can provide evidence.

Don’t you know?

It is possible the DEWs were satellite based, in space!

Yes, space lasers you see.

Tell ‘em, bee.

Seriously now, this nonsense theory is led by two proven disinformation artists, one of whom (Morgan Reynolds) worked for the Bush administration.

They also promote that there were no planes at the WTC.

The intent is to discredit the truth movement.

Anyhow, I see it’s hopeless trying to keep any 9/11 thread on topic.

booNyyyyy!!!

[booNyzarC]

Sorry, been really busy with work for the last couple of weeks and it is catching up with me, plus I'm spending some family time tonight. I'm working on a response and hope to have it posted soon.

[booNyzarC]

This discussion carried over from the thread here.

Yes, let's ask the firefighters...

How about Deputy Chief Peter Hayden?

Early on

, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and

we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.

You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

linky

This quote does not contain detail of what transpired and sets a false impression.

Here is the fuller information…

Hayden himself was initially only, “concerned of the possibility of collapse” – as I mentioned before, this type of concern was normal. It is the unnamed engineer I keep referring to (and who Hayden refers to as “we” above) who actually told the FDNY, complete with “on the money” time estimate, that WTC7 was coming down.

Hayden explains it here: -

“And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?... And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’”

So we see, the only reason he said, “we were pretty sure she was going to collapse” is due to advice received from the unnamed engineer. It is this advice which passed to Chief Nigro, filtered down through the fire fighter ranks and led to the full withdrawal.

NIST lead investigator, Shyam Sunder, further confirmed this when asked where foreknowledge of the WTC7 collapse originated: -

“We are aware that an engineer or a technical expert or a technical advisor was providing advice to the city agencies with regard to the condition of building 7. The advice really was focussed on whether or not firefighting operations should be continued in Building 7...

So it was the judgement of this advisor or advisors that the building eventually would come down…”

That is the official narrative - the initial collapse warning came from an unnamed advisor (the engineer mentioned by Hayden).

How does that quote set a false impression? Hayden was "concerned of the possibility of collapse" just like you quoted. The fact that someone else confirmed and reinforced his initial suspicions doesn't negate those initial suspicions in any way.

The rest of the quotes are all well and good, but they aren't a definitive indication of foreknowledge. They can easily be seen as merely expectations and the result of many people discussing the likelihood of collapse. And given the circumstances of the day I don't see how anyone can deny that virtually everyone could very easily have been wondering what building(s) might come down next. This would be especially true for the men and women on the ground right there, watching WTC 7 continue to burn unchecked.

Besides, quillius brought up a completely valid point when isolating the fact that the unnamed engineer was responding to the question of what he would expect if they allowed the building to burn.

In consideration of the already tragic loss of life, why would anyone in their right mind put more lives in potential risk to try to save the building? I certainly wouldn't want to have been the guy to make that call... would you?

How about all of these quotes that flyingswan provided back in August?

post 554

And you claim that nobody expected the building to come down except for one unnamed guy? Really?

It’s like you are trying not to get the point. Come on booNy, I know you understand this…

No, I completely get the point and I understand where you are coming from. Or at least I think that I do. I just don't agree with your interpretation of the statements in question. I don't believe for even a moment that every one of those firefighters had no idea that the building could collapse or that at least a few of them didn't strongly suspect all on their own that it most likely would collapse.

Not one of the firefighters expected WTC7 to come down of their own independent judgment. The fire fighters expected the building to come down because that is what they were told was going to happen.

That quote at the top of Swanny’s list for example is from Lieutenant James McGlynn. It is on record that he and the firefighters accompanying him had been told, a short time before passing the building, that it was going to come down (the advice from ‘unnamed engineer’ above was relayed through FDNY radios).

That is the only reason McGlynn then asks, “It's like, is it coming down next?” It is not because he heard a “creak” and saw fire (common occurrences in his line of work) that he thought this. It is because the idea was already firmly implanted in his mind that the WTC7 was coming down before he ever even witnessed the building for himself.

I beg to differ. I think quite a few of them expected it to come down. That was a long list of quotes that Swanny gave.

By your own admission Hayden himself was "concerned of the possibility of collapse" before he even spoke with this unnamed person. What about some of the other quotes?

What about this one in particular?

We were worried about that collapsing, and it did collapse, about six hours later.

This was clearly before the unnamed engineer gave his 5 hour estimate. Was this another person (or persons) in on the supposed conspiracy?

Maybe because there is no certainty of foreknowledge as you claim? I wouldn't call it ignoring though, more like refuting.

You refute through ignoring? Sorry, I don’t understand that. I am referring to the wording, “adamant”, “definitely”, “imminent”, “going to”, “was”, “is” which you ignored and apparently think has been refuted.

I'm not ignoring it by any means. I just don't think that your hardline interpretation of individual words within these statements as some kind of definitive proof of foreknowledge is accurate. I understand that this is one possible way to interpret them, and I won't deny you that. But it certainly isn't the only way, and I don't agree that it is likely to be the correct interpretation.

Everyone on the ground and in a position to have an impact seems to have been interested in preventing any further loss of life. Why wouldn't Silverstein want to keep this building from causing more loss of life? Wouldn't you, in a similar position, want to do whatever you could to prevent further loss of life?

So why do you deny the possibility it may have been brought down for that purpose?

I wouldn't have been the least bit surprised if it had eventually been pulled down for that precise purpose if it hadn't come down on its own; Probably with cables.

And no, it didn't come down in a controlled manner. The videos give that impression, but the reality is that it didn't fall into its own footprint. You know this Q24. Why are you pushing something that you know for a fact is false?

Excuse me?

I said, “virtually in its own footprint, minimal damage to surrounding structures”.

Not bad, eh?

I must have skipped the word "virtually" in my first read. Apologies for any misunderstanding.

My point was intended to be that it definitely damaged surrounding structures and was leaning south east during the collapse. It didn't fall straight down and it didn't collapse as a whole like a demolition would. The initiation of the collapse was much earlier than most conspiracy theorists state, and this much is obvious by the disappearing east penthouse followed by the west penthouse.

This link goes into plenty of detail explaining. I'm sure you've read it already, or at least I'd assume that you have.

We’ve had some nice chats together, you know I am interested in the truth of these matters. Please don’t accuse me of promoting something I know is false – I have never done that once in my time here. I’m sure you have better arguments than that. If you somehow believe my statement is not supported by the photograph I’d like to hear why you think so.

We have had some nice chats. Did you notice the small ACARS victory by the way? RB pulled the links from his front page and the Latest News section of his forum. Who knows, maybe he has more integrity than I gave him credit for?

At any rate I didn't intend to paint you in a bad light and I'm glad that you've pointed out my misunderstanding regarding your intention about the "virtually in its own footprint." Hopefully that's all cleared up now.

I just want to add that I'm not making a claim that there was no foreknowledge. I don't have a position one way or the other on the subject to be honest. I just don't see how you've established this firmly as you seem to think you have. I can see an alternate interpretation for each of the points you've raised regarding the statements in question which fully supports the official narrative.

In my own personal opinion the interpretation in support of the official narrative appears far more credible and likely, but that is my own opinion and I'm not trying to present it as definitive or factual. In order to sway my opinion you'll need something far more substantial, and I honestly don't think there is anything substantial to be had in support of the inside job theory or it probably would have come to light by now. Again, just my opinion.

Cheers.

[kaptn k]

Fires Don't Cause Skyscrapers to Collapse.

If WTC towers 1 and 2 and WTC 7 collapsed because of the fires it would be the first time in history that a steel-frame skyscraper totally collapsed because of fires or any other cause or combination of causes other than controlled demolition.

47-story WTC 7 sustained no impacts from aircraft or large falling objects, and only small fires were observed within it prior to its precisely vertical "collapse" into a small tidy rubble pile, 7 hours after the North Tower fell

WTC7

Funny how there are people that believe falling debris can make a 47 floor building collapse so evenly - ever stop and ask yourself how many other surrounding buildings got hit by falling debris and didn't collapse? Are people that uneducated? If all it took was some falling fire debris to bring down a steel structure, more buildings would have collapse that day. Many other building were damaged by the first two towers collapse and remaind standing, with structural damage beyond some simple office furniture/supplies burning for a few hours.

It just amazes me what people are willing to accept as the 'official story' and never bother to investigate or ask questions. "...well the president said a fire took out wtc7,so it must be true....presidents don't lie....." --- Presidents don't lie right? Governmant agencies put in charge to investigate crimes don't lie right? Yea - and Big Bird signed the declaration of indiependance, right next to John Hancocks signature. It's there everyone, go look.

Edited January 20, 2012 by kaptn k

[booNyzarC]

WTC7

I'll have to take a look at these later, just need to respond to your comments first...

Funny how there are people that believe falling debris can make a 47 floor building collapse so evenly - ever stop and ask yourself how many other surrounding buildings got hit by falling debris and didn't collapse?

How evenly did WTC 7 collapse kaptn? Did any of the other surrounding buildings that got hit by falling debris also have raging fires to the extent that WTC 7 had?

Are people that uneducated? If all it took was some falling fire debris to bring down a steel structure, more buildings would have collapse that day.

Are you going to educate us kaptn? Which other buildings would have collapsed that day under similar circumstances? Can you please share with all of us exactly which buildings sustained similar damage and had raging fires go completely unchecked?

Many other building were damaged by the first two towers collapse and remaind standing, with structural damage beyond some simple office furniture/supplies burning for a few hours.

Which ones? How long is a few hours? Three? Were those fires combated at all or were they left to continue burning on their own? Were those fires as substantial as the fires in WTC 7?

It just amazes me what people are willing to accept as the 'official story' and never bother to investigate or ask questions. "...well the president said a fire took out wtc7,so it must be true....presidents don't lie....." --- Presidents don't lie right? Governmant agencies put in charge to investigate crimes don't lie right? Yea - and Big Bird signed the declaration of indiependance, right next to John Hancocks signature. It's there everyone, go look.

It just amazes me that some people go off half-cocked shooting their mouths off and attributing this all to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

By the way, this thread is about foreknowledge. Did any portion of your post contribute to the topic? Is it in the video or the other link? I'll go check those out to see.

Nope, guess not.

[kaptn k]

How evenly did WTC 7 collapse kaptn? Did any of the other surrounding buildings that got hit by falling debris also have raging fires to the extent that WTC 7 had?

Are you going to educate us kaptn? Which other buildings would have collapsed that day under similar circumstances? Can you please share with all of us exactly which buildings sustained similar damage and had raging fires go completely unchecked?

It just amazes me that some people go off half-cocked shooting their mouths off and attributing this all to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

Wow - you come off as a complete **EDIT** but that's ok.

**Leave the ad homs out of this.**

**EDIT** You obviously did not watch ANY video of wtc7 falling. If you had, you would have seen how it fell EVENLY. Did you see it fall to one side? You must have trouble with the definition of the word EVENLY. Go look it up k.

So, that is part of my educating you, sorry you needed some learning about the basics. It's ok.

Let's see, the fact that other building that were close by and DIDN'T collapse, from falling debris, is my evidence. Go look that one up too. And, just because you didn't like my post, doesn't mean it wasn't a good contribution, it just means you didn't like it.

Why did you not like it? Simple, because (as you accuse me) I went off on a half cocked 'conspiracy' idea that you hate. Seems like you're the type that doesn'y like anyone that questions the 'official story' and, imo - people like yourself that only accept 'official' answers, are the problem with America. I presented evidence, you, just got huffy like a 7th grader.

If you don't like my posts - ignore me, k?

Edited January 20, 2012 by aquatus1

[booNyzarC]

Wow - you come off as a complete **EDIT** but that's ok.

How so?

All I did is ask you questions. Does that make you feel uncomfortable?

**EDIT**

How so?

What am I missing exactly?

You obviously did not watch ANY video of wtc7 falling. If you had, you would have seen how it fell EVENLY. Did you see it fall to one side? You must have trouble with the definition of the word EVENLY. Go look it up k.

I've watched many videos of WTC 7 falling. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, I've watched all of them.

Are you telling me that you've never seen a video of WTC 7 falling to the side?

WTC 7 collapse at about 3:17... that was "EVENLY"?

I guess that's what happens when you only watch videos in support of conspiracy theories.

So, that is part of my educating you, sorry you needed some learning about the basics. It's ok.

Tell me again, what exactly did you educate me about? I think I missed it...

Let's see, the fact that other building that were close by and DIDN'T collapse, from falling debris, is my evidence. Go look that one up too.

Which buildings were those again? Can you please provide some support for your statement?

Thanks.

And, just because you didn't like my post, doesn't mean it wasn't a good contribution, it just means you didn't like it.

Why did you not like it? Simple, because (as you accuse me) I went off on a half cocked 'conspiracy' idea that you hate. Seems like you're the type that doesn'y like anyone that questions the 'official story' and, imo - people like yourself that only accept 'official' answers, are the problem with America. I presented evidence, you, just got huffy like a 7th grader.

I don't mind people questioning things at all. Feel free to question all you want.

But is that what you were doing? I don't think so...

What evidence did you present? Perhaps I missed it... The orange video? The other link that had nothing to do with foreknowledge?

If you don't like my posts - ignore me, k?

You would rather not be asked questions wouldn't you?

Edited January 20, 2012 by aquatus1

[Q24]

How does that quote set a false impression? Hayden was "concerned of the possibility of collapse" just like you quoted. The fact that someone else confirmed and reinforced his initial suspicions doesn't negate those initial suspicions in any way.

The first quote in isolation sets a false impression that on basis of observation, Hayden made an independent and confident judgment that WTC7 would collapse (“we saw a bulge in the southwest corner … and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse”). The more complete quotes show that Hayden’s judgment was not independent and neither was he confident of his own accord. You are correct that the engineer did not negate Hayden’s concern but extended it to the point where the FDNY became “pretty sure”.

It is also worth noting what had occurred in the lead up to Hayden’s initial concern…

At around 11:30am: -

According to Captain Michael Currid, the sergeant at arms for the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, some time after the collapse of the North Tower, he sees four or five fire companies trying to extinguish fires in Building 7 of the WTC. Someone from the city’s Office of Emergency Management tells him that WTC 7 is in serious danger of collapse.

Currid says, “The consensus was that it was basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it.” Along with some others, he goes inside WTC 7 and yells up the stairwells to the fire fighters, “Drop everything and get out!”

We see here that the FDNY were initially content to fight the early fire until an OEM staff (a decade later, still unnamed) warned there was a “serious danger of collapse”. At which point, the firefighters evacuated the building. This is the earliest record of collapse concern for the building.

Hayden and the FDNY were not “pretty sure” or even “concerned” until after informed that WTC7 would collapse.

The order of events: -

Prior 11:30am: FDNY unconcerned.

Around 11:30am: ‘unnamed’ warns serious danger of collapse.

After 11:30am: FDNY concerned.

Around 12pm: ‘unnamed’ warns WTC7 is coming down.

After 12pm: FDNY confident.

The FDNY were not concerned of collapse before the warnings from ‘unnamed’, i.e. they were influenced.

Last quote from NIST’s Shyam Sunder: -

“We are aware that an engineer or a technical expert or a technical advisor was providing advice to the city agencies [FDNY] …

it was the judgement of this advisor or advisors that the building eventually would come down…

”

That is the official narrative.

To oppose that, and suggest the FDNY would be confident of collapse in lieu of those external warnings, one would need to provide evidence that a fire fighter made an observation and reasoned deduction of why it should lead to collapse. The simple fact that there was fire, façade damage, creaking or a bulge in the corner of the building cannot lead to a confident full building collapse conclusion.

But no such reasoning exists from the fire fighters, because the fact is their concern came from ‘unnamed’.

In consideration of the already tragic loss of life, why would anyone in their right mind put more lives in potential risk to try to save the building? I certainly wouldn't want to have been the guy to make that call... would you?

This is a strawman - no one is saying the FDNY should have ignored the warnings.

The fact is that the FDNY would have contentedly fought the fires if not influenced to expect collapse. The early fire fighters on the scene did. The fire fighters who turned up in the afternoon wanted to. The collapse warning was so unusual that Chief Visconti who gave the fall back order couldn’t at first grasp what he was being told. The fire fighters made to pull back from the area derided the call, “that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out?”

Again, the only reason the fire was not fought and the FDNY fell back is due to our prophetic ‘unnamed’.

I don't believe for even a moment that every one of those firefighters had no idea that the building could collapse or that at least a few of them didn't strongly suspect all on their own that it most likely would collapse.

Then please prove it. Provide just one quote which proves any firefighter confidently determined the collapse “all on their own”… just one. Until then, the above is speculation in defiance of the wider quotes and information I have provided, not to mention the official narrative given by Sunder.

I can be of assistance here – don’t waste your time looking for a quote that proves any firefighter determined collapse “all on their own”. There are no collapse concerns which precede the warning from ‘unnamed’ at 11:30am. There are therefore no firefighters who were not influenced to expect collapse. There are no firefighters who explain how any observation reasonably followed a chain which led to deduction of a full collapse.

What about this one in particular?

We were worried about that collapsing, and it did collapse, about six hours later.

This was clearly before the unnamed engineer gave his 5 hour estimate. Was this another person (or persons) in on the supposed conspiracy?

I’m not sure if you are aware that is another quote from Hayden – please see above warning that preceded his concern.

Next quote? Pssst… I’m going to say the same thing for them all, that the warning from ‘unnamed’ had already been received which influenced the FDNY perception.

I'm not ignoring it by any means. I just don't think that your hardline interpretation of individual words within these statements as some kind of definitive proof of foreknowledge is accurate. I understand that this is one possible way to interpret them, and I won't deny you that. But it certainly isn't the only way, and I don't agree that it is likely to be the correct interpretation.

However one chooses to interpret words like “definitely” and “adamant”, I think we agree there was an extremely high level of on-scene confidence that WTC7 would collapse. I’m happy to compromise at that. I think it is more about why that confidence existed that we disagree on.

I wouldn't have been the least bit surprised if it had eventually been pulled down for that precise purpose if it hadn't come down on its own; Probably with cables.

What I’m asking is, if the intent was there (which we know it was, due to Silverstein’s morning telephone call seeking authority for demolition) and on inspection the collapse looks like a rapidly assembled demolition, why deny the possibility and default to ‘fire beat him to it’? I don’t understand the reason for that, other than a desire to adhere the official story.

In my own personal opinion the interpretation in support of the official narrative appears far more credible and likely…

I don’t see how an interpretation with no evidence is more credible than an interpretation with evidence.

I have proven that confident foreknowledge originated from ‘unnamed’ individuals on scene and heavily influenced expectations and actions of the fire fighters. You have provided nothing but speculation that the FDNY expected collapse of their own accord.

Is it true that one appears more credible to you only because that is what you want to believe?

Did any of the other surrounding buildings that got hit by falling debris also have raging fires to the extent that WTC 7 had?

Yes, WTC6 suffered more severe debris damage than WTC7 along with extensive fires. There was no great panic that WTC6 faced “adamant”, “imminent”, “definite” collapse.

The Bankers Trust building, South of the WTC site, also suffered debris damage and sustained a significant fire during deconstruction some years later – there is not a hint of concern it would collapse.

There are also the high-rise fires NIST stated were equivalent to those in WTC7 - One New York Plaza, First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza – no concern of collapse there either.

The WTC7 foreknowledge was unique – like someone knew what was coming.

We have had some nice chats. Did you notice the small ACARS victory by the way? RB pulled the links from his front page and the Latest News section of his forum. Who knows, maybe he has more integrity than I gave him credit for?

Tsk, integrity… I don’t think so. More like being thoroughly exposed and now engaging in damage control by ending the ACARS discussion. Right along with the declaration that this once showpiece evidence is now “trivial”, we get, “… (Czero” and “CrazyNooB/booNyzarC”) were already crushed on UM regarding such topics, until one of our representatives was banned without warning.” There has been no retraction. There is no integrity about it – that’s not the intended game.

[Babe Ruth]

Frenat & Raptor

I think we are essentially in agreement regarding the DEW question.

It is interesting to note that Judy Wood(s?) filed a lawsuit regarding the DEW question, and in that suit provided information regarding 1 or 2 companies that ARE into DEW research in a big way. I think her legal case was a Qui Tam case which is based on the False Claims Act updated in 1986.

The interesting part was that those companies provided to NIST maybe 2 dozen "assistants" in its "investigation" into the WTC events. Her position was that in that process, the line of investigation and reasoning deliberately steered away from any sort of DEW related information.

I have no particular position on it, but in behavior typical of the government coverup, the court refused to hear the case.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Babe Ruth

[Babe Ruth]

Prints whatever the governments tells them do they? This would be the same BBC news organisation that ran and stuck by the Gilligan story naming David Kelly as the source for the 'sexed up dossier' for the Iraq war, the same Iraq war that was used as 9/11 being the excuse, a story which was the single biggest headache for the government of the time, the same government that backed Bush in his ventures....

I think you might want to add your above assumptions as yet another subject you haven't really thought through..

There are exceptions to every rule sir, and I'm sure you agree on that.

The larger point is that the american media is rather like Tony Blair's government--a lapdog for the US government.

I will grant you that for the most part the European media do a much better job at asking questions, and so too the British government. The questioning of Rupert Murdoch would NEVER have happened in the US government.

For the most part, the US media asks no questions and merely prints and says what it is told. There are thousands of examples of this, but certainly the runup to the invasion of Iraq is the best example. So too any sort of questions regarding the official narrative of 11 September.

[skyeagle409]

Why firefighters felt WTC 7 would soon collapse.

"...but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.

You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

My link

Nothing in the message about stepping over thousands of feet of detonation wires nor the discovery of blasting caps or planted explosives within the WTC 7 building.

Edited January 20, 2012 by skyeagle409

[frenat]

Frenat & Raptor

I think we are essentially in agreement regarding the DEW question.

It is interesting to note that Judy Wood(s?) filed a lawsuit regarding the DEW question, and in that suit provided information regarding 1 or 2 companies that ARE into DEW research in a big way. I think her legal case was a Qui Tam case which is based on the False Claims Act updated in 1986.

The interesting part was that those companies provided to NIST maybe 2 dozen "assistants" in its "investigation" into the WTC events. Her position was that in that process, the line of investigation and reasoning deliberately steered away from any sort of DEW related information.

I have no particular position on it, but in behavior typical of the government coverup, the court refused to hear the case.

If by "essentially in agreement" you mean you think the whole DEW argument is a load of BS too then yes we are. But I don't think you mean that so kindly stop trying to put words in my mouth. There is no evidence for DEWs bringing any buildings down, nor any for DEWs of the massive power needed to accomplish such a feat. Judy Woods spoke well out of her expertise.

[DONTEATUS]

You can fool most of the people most of the time,but you gotta be an "@#$%%$00e" to believe that the WTC attack was anything but two aircraft crashing into them. Get a Life please. do some real investagation ! It was as it has been found to be ! An American tragedy.

And yes we really did get the Bad guys ! What part of facts do people miss on this issue ?

[bee]

.

I'm not going to go on and on about the DEW thing....but if anyone is interested enough there is a good interview

and information on this link.

http://www.drjudywood.com/

While I don't share Judy Wood's conclusion that the whole of 9/11 was a pre-planned PSYOPS affair...I do think she has gathered some

good evidence for DEWs being used that day on the Twin Towers (and affecting the wider area)

My view is that WTCs 1+2 WERE hit by airliners, hijacked by militant Jihad Islamists and that

DEWs were used on the Towers for the purposes of Damage Limitation.

it's about molecular dissociation....or 'dustification'....(as Judy Wood sometimes describes it)

http://911u.org/Physics/

So once we confirm evidence of widespread molecular dissociation having occurred at Ground Zero in New York City, we have a very strong indication that only exotic, unconventional weaponry could have released that much extremely -- unimaginably -- high intensity energy which suddenly appeared just as the towers disintegrated from top to bottom. This understanding means we cannot blame the highly unconventional Ground Zero devastation on thermite/thermate/superthermate and "controlled demolition" any more than we can blame it on "jet fuel" or "box cutters".

and more on topic....as WTC7 came down in the same way that the Towers did...I speculate that it could have got weakened by the field effects

of how-ever the molecular dissociation was created...and it too had to be brought down by DEWs...to bring it down into

it's own footprint and prevent even more severe damage to the area.

.

Edited January 20, 2012 by bee

[TSS]

The order of events: -

Prior 11:30am: FDNY unconcerned.

Around 11:30am: ‘unnamed’ warns serious danger of collapse.

After 11:30am: FDNY concerned.

Around 12pm: ‘unnamed’ warns WTC7 is coming down.

After 12pm: FDNY confident.

Assessments when fighting fires are made constantly, between the fire fighters in the building, those manning the tenders, those in charge of the initial site in conjunction with a higher ranking officer when multiple fires are being fought (accessing man power to more relevant fires/areas...which also includes fires spreading or potential for collapse). These are continuous assessments.

Can I see the evidence which shows that in those communications they remained 'unconcerned' about the potential for collapse until they were informed so by this unnamed source?

[Q24]

Assessments when fighting fires are made constantly, between the fire fighters in the building, those manning the tenders, those in charge of the initial site in conjunction with a higher ranking officer when multiple fires are being fought (accessing man power to more relevant fires/areas...which also includes fires spreading or potential for collapse). These are continuous assessments.

Agreed.

Can I see the evidence which shows that in those communications they remained 'unconcerned' about the potential for collapse until they were informed so by this unnamed source?

The fact they were in WTC7 fighting the fire suggests they were not particularly concerned about collapse at that point.

Please see the quote I supplied from FDNY Captain Michael Currid.

[TSS]

The fact they were in WTC7 fighting the fire suggests they were not particularly concerned about collapse at that point.

Which is why there is constant assessment, things change every minute. Plus, bad calls are made unfortunately, fire fighters are sent into buildings that later collapse, we have a case here in the UK right now of four that died after a building collapsed on them.

Please see the quote I supplied from FDNY Captain Michael Currid.

I have, there is nothing to say that the info from the unknown source was the only info they went on when making that call - or have I missed some info?

[Q24]

Which is why there is constant assessment, things change every minute. Plus, bad calls are made unfortunately, fire fighters are sent into buildings that later collapse, we have a case here in the UK right now of four that died after a building collapsed on them.

Agreed.

I have, there is nothing to say that the info from the unknown source was the only info they went on when making that call - or have I missed some info?

I don’t think so – you can’t miss what’s not there.

Currid says the warning came from the OEM.

Sunder also confirmed the collapse warnings came from external advisors to the FDNY.

What did they know that the FDNY did not?