445 replies to this topic

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 17 January 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

I've read through your previous discussions with swanny about this and so far I don't agree with your assessment.

I don't think you've established that anyone knew it was going to happen.  It just appears to me as though a lot of people considered it extremely likely.  There is a big difference between these two things and considering how important and central it is to your position, you would need to establish this purported foreknowledge as definitive for it to actually have the ramifications you are implying.

So far I haven't seen you establish this as fact.  It is merely supposition.

It happens that “extremely likely” is quite enough for the argument I’m making - no one on scene should have been extremely confident of collapse.

Still, to reinforce: -

• “Because they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately. I think we probably got out of that rubble and 18 minutes later is when 7 came down.”
  Matthew Long – Firefighter
  
  
• “I remember him screaming about 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you're away from it, that's an order, you know, stuff like that.”
  Edward Kennedy – Firefighter
  
  
• “We were then positioned on Vesey Street between North End and the West Side Highway because there was an imminent collapse on 7 World Trade, and it did collapse.”
  Brian Fitzpatrick – Firefighter
  
  
• “We hear over the fire portable, 'Everybody evacuate the site.  It's going to collapse.' Mark Steffens starts yelling, 'Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go!  It's going to collapse.'”
  Louis Cook - Paramedic
  
  
• “They were saying building seven was going to collapse, so we regrouped and went back to our rig. We went to building four or three; I don't know. We were going to set up our tower ladder there. They said no good because building seven is coming down.”
  James Wallace – Firefighter

I’d say “adamant”, “definitely” , “imminent” , “going to”, “was” , “is” are enough to make the case.

Of course, most of the firefighters had not viewed the building for themselves and those who had were skeptical of the warning – what the quotes actually show is the certainty with which they were informed that WTC7 was to collapse.  Apparently the same certainty which led media to report it had already happened.

That is a small selection of the foreknowledge.

Once we start looking at timing of the fall back, perimeter setting and power shutdown, the way the warnings became more urgent shortly before collapse, the desire of the building owner to bring it down, the belief on scene that demolition of the building was a possibility, then it becomes an open and shut case.

All this, and then, for the first time in history, fire happens to immitate the characteristics of demolition.




Sure.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 17 January 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

I didn't say it was a priority to save the building – clearly it wasn't and, once the FDNY received advice the building was coming down, the firefighters were pulled back.  It doesn't matter how the building came down, that was the correct decision to make and the reason no lives were lost in the WTC7 collapse.  Well, except for the body of a secret service agent that was later recovered – I don't know what he was doing in there (pyromaniac or fixing the demolition setup at a guess).  Anyhow, this is all beside the point I was making.

Here is another case where the conspiracy folks confused what Mr. Silverstein had actually said in regards to "Pull-it." He meant for the withdrawal of the firefighters from WTC 7, not for the demolition of WTC 7, because he was told the fire could not be contain within WTC 7, and since that was the case, why allow the firefighters to remain in the building?The term, "Pull-it," was meant to withdraw the firefighters, which was made by the New York Fire Department, not anyone to do with the demolition process, and this is another clear example where the conspiracy truthers have clouded the 9/11 incidents with misinformation and disinformation.

Review this video and understand word-for-word, what is being presented and understand how conspiracy truthers have been responsible for spreading disinformation and misinformation all over the Internet.

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 January 2012 - 01:59 AM.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 18 January 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

It happens that “extremely likely” is quite enough for the argument I’m making - no one on scene should have been extremely confident of collapse.

Why wouldn't they be?

Towers 1 and 2 had come down under seemingly similar circumstances.  Damage and fire.  WTC 7 had both in common as well.  Damage and fire.

Of course they expected the building to come down.

Again, that isn't foreknowledge.  That is a reasonable expectation after the previous events of the day.

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 18 January 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

Here is another case where the conspiracy folks confused what Mr. Silverstein had actually said in regards to "Pull-it." He meant for the withdrawal of the firefighters from WTC 7, not for the demolition of WTC 7, because he was told the fire could not be contain within WTC 7, and since that was the case, why allow the firefighters to remain in the building?The term, "Pull-it," was meant to withdraw the firefighters, which was made by the New York Fire Department, not anyone to do with the demolition process, and this is another clear example where the conspiracy truthers have clouded the 9/11 incidents with misinformation and disinformation.

Was that supposed to be in response to what I had said?

I’ll assume you were just quoting me as a random prelude to going on your own tangent.

Anyhow, looks like Silverstein panicked after release of the FEMA report which declared the best fire based hypothesis to be of “low probability” – his “pull it” comment was setting the cover story had proceedings turned sour from there.

booNyzarC, on 18 January 2012 - 02:24 AM, said:

Why wouldn't they be?

Why wouldn’t those on scene be extremely confident of collapse?  If you can’t accept what I’ve already said then ask the firefighters – the fact is, they weren’t.  I should think this was due to all known precedent along with their understanding of structures and experience of fires.  Apparently they realized that airliner impacts and widespread jet fuel ignited fires were rather different to façade damage and office fire.  Ask them why they weren’t confident of the WTC7 collapse until our unnamed individuals informed them so.

Why have you ignored the certainty of foreknowledge demonstrated in my last post?

booNyzarC, on 18 January 2012 - 02:24 AM, said:

Of course they expected the building to come down.

Who did?  Not the FDNY of their own accord.

Why have you ignored the fact that Silverstein wanted to bring the building down?  Don’t you think it coincidence he wanted the building taking down in a controlled manner and then it did come down in a controlled manner, i.e. virtually in its own footprint, minimal damage to surrounding structures?

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 18 January 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

Why wouldn’t those on scene be extremely confident of collapse?  If you can’t accept what I’ve already said then ask the firefighters – the fact is, they weren’t.  I should think this was due to all known precedent along with their understanding of structures and experience of fires.  Apparently they realized that airliner impacts and widespread jet fuel ignited fires were rather different to façade damage and office fire.  Ask them why they weren’t confident of the WTC7 collapse until our unnamed individuals informed them so.

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

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

flyingswan, on 11 August 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

Here are a few of the firefighter quotes that support them using their own observations to determine that a collapse was imminent:

...you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next?

...Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down.

I just remember feeling like helpless, like everybody there was doomed and there is -- I just felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do.

...but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right...

...Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped.

At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place...

You see the white smoke, you see the thing leaning like this? It's definitely going. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out, and it's already, the structural integrity is not there.

Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there...

We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.

Then we were just hanging out watching building 7 ready to go.

...We were all pretty much on board that tower 7 was going to fall. We just didn't know when...

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

...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.

...and here's a firefighter supporting my "exaggeration" that the WTC7 fire was worse than the Towers:

...the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40-story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

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

Q24, on 18 January 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

Why have you ignored the certainty of foreknowledge demonstrated in my last post?

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

Q24, on 18 January 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

Who did?  Not the FDNY of their own accord.

Ahem...  really?

Q24, on 18 January 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

Why have you ignored the fact that Silverstein wanted to bring the building down?  Don’t you think it coincidence he wanted the building taking down in a controlled manner and then it did come down in a controlled manner, i.e. virtually in its own footprint, minimal damage to surrounding structures?

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?

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?

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 18 January 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

Was that supposed to be in response to what I had said?

Yes! And, there was no evidence that explosives brought down WTC 7.

Quote

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified: 393, 394

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.


Report: Fire, not bombs, leveled WTC 7 building
Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows that internal column failure brought down the building.

Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's emergency operations command center.

The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.

"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder.

The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of the two large towers.

In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed.

The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one part of a building from spreading to other parts.

No one was killed in the collapse of building 7 because it had been fully evacuated. A new, slightly taller World Trade Center 7 opened in 2006.

A spokesman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.

"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan.

My link

FD HIDDEN DIV

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 January 2012 - 06:24 AM.

[aquatus1]

We have, as expected, wandered away from the original topic.  As a reminder, this thread was specifically regarding the video footage.

**Back on topic**

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

Little Fish, on 17 January 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

I don't mean to disrespect you but your "blue screen" speculation is nonsense.

yes the footage behind her is "live", because the footage was aired 20 minutes before wtc7 collapsed.

here a different bbc news channel, news24 reported the same thing and there is a timestamp proving the report of wtc7 collapsing aired 20 minutes before it actually collapsed,
8:20 here:

You didn't disrespect me Sir and I'm grateful for the info..(i was too lazy to watch the footage..damn Manflu is killing me...and women say child birth is bad....pah.. ..) but the fact that on that day a person makes a mistake through probable misinformation,speaks the loudest...

Just to add one sobering thought....in Desert Storm,an American A10 fired upon a British Warrior MICV...we were carrying our flag on our roof as told....big flag...we still lost men all through misinformation....if it can happen in a war scenario then why not on a day like that day

Edited by BrianPotter, 18 January 2012 - 07:13 AM.

[Antilles]

BrianPotter, on 18 January 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

You didn't disrespect me Sir and I'm grateful for the info..(i was too lazy to watch the footage..damn Manflu is killing me...and women say child birth is bad....pah.. ..) but the fact that on that day a person makes a mistake through probable misinformation,speaks the loudest...

Just to add one sobering thought....in Desert Storm,an American A10 fired upon a British Warrior MICV...we were carrying our flag on our roof as told....big flag...we still lost men all through misinformation....if it can happen in a war scenario then why not on a day like that day

As quite a few other people have commented on this thread, it doesn't matter what the US government or anyone says or does, there are going to be people who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy and they will argue that position forever.

The vids no not show anything different from what physics expects when planes hit buildings, massive fires erupt, structural weakness occurs and I'm sorry folks but gravity then takes its course.

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

Antilles, on 18 January 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

As quite a few other people have commented on this thread, it doesn't matter what the US government or anyone says or does, there are going to be people who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy and they will argue that position forever.

The vids no not show anything different from what physics expects when planes hit buildings, massive fires erupt, structural weakness occurs and I'm sorry folks but gravity then takes its course.

Hmmm...i agree....I think people watch too many movies and think that what they see is real......during Desert Storm,an old officer told me that Saddam was allowed to survive due to being(his words,not mine)...'Better the Devil you know'....As a young mutt back then,i didnt realise what future events held for me.....suppose i shouldnt have been so good at my job....

[Babe Ruth]

Antilles

If we can agree to use dictionary definitions, then IT WAS A CONSPIRACY.

The only real question is "Who were the conspirators?"

[Babe Ruth]

booNyzarC, on 17 January 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

Not another example?

Are you forgetting the fact that WTC 1 and WTC 2 had already fallen by that point?  They had what?  Damage from the impact of the planes and fires.

WTC 7 had damage from the North Tower debris and fires.

You are going to try to tell me that people on the ground, in the moment, on that day weren't expecting something similar to potentially happen with WTC 7 after witnessing the damage and seeing the fire rage on for hours and hours?  Ridiculous.  Of course people would expect that as completely viable.  The damage to the front of the building looked pretty bad, fires were continuing to rage, who wouldn't expect it?

And for anyone who wants to come in with claims that according to NIST the damage to the facade didn't significantly contribute to the actual collapse, that doesn't matter.  We are talking about the impressions of people on the ground at the time, not people who have the benefit of the investigation that happened long after.

Of course these people on the ground at the time would anticipate the possible eventual collapse of WTC 7.  Why wouldn't they?

I hope you are aware that WTC had not been struck by an airplane?

But the fact remains sir, prior to that day when there were 3 all in the same city block, there were no examples of modern high-rise buildings collapsing at virtually free-fall rates from fire.

That is the point sir, and that raises the question: "how were so many in positions of authority CERTAIN that 7 was going to collapse?"

The answer is obvious, and just a tiny part of the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE in this case.

[Tesla II]

skyeagle409, on 17 January 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

There was no government conspiracy and with a country full of nosy reporters looking for the top story of the year, don't you find it unusual that after more than 10 years not a shred of evidence has surfaced that proves a government 9/11 conspiracy?

Yet there is 2 many things to explain which one is not giving any answers so yeah after 10 years nothing will be given actualy never will be. Wonder why? Ow right they are hiding something.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 18 January 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

I hope you are aware that WTC had not been struck by an airplane?

Just the same, WTC suffered the same fate at the WTC towers, and in those cases as well as in the case of the Pentagon, no evidence of explosives were found.

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 January 2012 - 03:31 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Nuke_em, on 18 January 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

Yet there is 2 many things to explain which one is not giving any answers so yeah after 10 years nothing will be given actualy never will be. Wonder why? Ow right they are hiding something.

Questions for you.

Can we consider United Airlines a government agency? Can we consider American Airlines a government agency?

After all, both airlines confirmed their aircraft had crashed into the WTC towers in New York City, the Pentagon, and at Shanksville.