1999 replies to this topic

[Q24]

This discussion carried over from the thread here.

booNyzarC, on 18 January 2012 - 04:31 AM, said:

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).

booNyzarC, on 18 January 2012 - 04:31 AM, said:

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


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…

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.

booNyzarC, on 18 January 2012 - 04:31 AM, said:

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.

booNyzarC, on 18 January 2012 - 04:31 AM, said:

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?

booNyzarC, on 18 January 2012 - 04:31 AM, said:

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?

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.

[BFB]

Can someone please answer this question for me?

Why didn't the sprinklers work in WTC 7?

[Q24]

BFB, on 18 January 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

Can someone please answer this question for me?

Why didn't the sprinklers work in WTC 7?

The lower sprinkler system was compromised.

NIST report: -

• WTC 7 contained a three-zone system of sprinklers and standpipes.
  
  
  • Water to the low zone (1^st floor through the 20^th floor) came from the water main.  The backup water also came from the water main via a supplement pump.
    
    
  • Water to the mid-level zone (21^st floor through the 30^th floor) was supplied from two large storage tanks located on the 46^th floor.  Backup water could be pumped from the water main.
    
    
  • The sources of the primary and backup water supplies to the high zone (40^th floor through the 47^th floor) were the same as for the mid-level zone.
• It is possible that the fires on the 22^nd, 29^th and 30^th floors were limited by automatic sprinklers whose water came from the storage tanks on the 47^th floor.
  
  
• Since the collapses of the towers had resulted in the loss of city water that was the sole supply for the automatic sprinkler system on the lower 20^th floors of WTC 7, these fires continued unabated.
  
  
• “The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred previously in several tall buildings (One New York Plaza, 1970, First Interstate Bank, 1988, and One Meridian Plaza, 1991) where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.”

Hope that helps.

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

Q24, on 18 January 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

This discussion carried over from the thread here.



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).



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

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.



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.



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



Excuse me?

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



Not bad, eh?

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.

Had anyone attempted to fly a plane into a building of such a structure as  the WTC before......?....i do not think so......a computer may say what it may withstand.......real life does not agree..

[Q24]

BrianPotter, on 18 January 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Had anyone attempted to fly a plane into a building of such a structure as  the WTC before......?....i do not think so......a computer may say what it may withstand.......real life does not agree..

Brian, the thread is about WTC7.  No plane flew into WTC7.  The official narrative states the building collapsed due to fire alone.

[quillius]

Hello Q24,

there is one part that is bugging me slightly.

from your quote above:

Quote

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.’”

its the part bolded- 'IF we allowed it to burn', which in effect is saying, if we dont allow it to burn we can stop it from collapsing. So this begs the question why did they not try and contain it as they are not told it WILL collapse, only that 'if they allow it to burn' it will.

thanks

[Q24]

quillius, on 18 January 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

its the part bolded- 'IF we allowed it to burn', which in effect is saying, if we dont allow it to burn we can stop it from collapsing. So this begs the question why did they not try and contain it as they are not told it WILL collapse, only that 'if they allow it to burn' it will.

That was the question Deputy Chief Hayden asked.  The firefighters were uncertain whether to attempt containing the fire or not – all they had up to that point was the OEM staff who had declared WTC7 a “lost cause” and scared them out of the building.

It is correct that had they continued to fight the fire from 11:30am the building could have been saved (according to the official theory) – there was nearly 6 hours to prevent the fire reaching the North-East of the building, the only area where quirk of the building design could supposedly initiate a collapse.

Now that would have ruined the demolition having firefighters all over the building and no fire, thus it appears why the FDNY were warned off.

[quillius]

Q24, on 18 January 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

That was the question Deputy Chief Hayden asked.  The firefighters were uncertain whether to attempt containing the fire or not – all they had up to that point was the OEM staff who had declared WTC7 a “lost cause” and scared them out of the building.

It is correct that had they continued to fight the fire from 11:30am the building could have been saved (according to the official theory) – there was nearly 6 hours to prevent the fire reaching the North-East of the building, the only area where quirk of the building design could supposedly initiate a collapse.

Now that would have ruined the demolition having firefighters all over the building and no fire, thus it appears why the FDNY were warned off.

Yes I understand that it was the question asked by Hayden, but he specifically says 'if we allowed it to burn', so why at this point would Hayden not have the firefighters control the blaze and NOT let it burn as this would stop a collapse as per the engineers answer to the question posed.

basically the only reason the firefighters would fear collapse would be if they let it burn.

[bee]

.


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.


Building 7 is a tricky one.....but I speculate that either it was sufficiently damaged to warrant it

being brought down (by DEWs) or that it copped some kind of weakening damage from the DEW used on the Twin Towers...

and had to be brought down....with DEWs.

In fact I submit that this might be a beam of something hitting the Penthouse...and seen as a bright ball of light,

that is integral to the 'fall' of Building 7...








you can see the whole Penthouse 'hit' and folding in, in this video.

[Sky Scanner]

quillius, on 18 January 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Yes I understand that it was the question asked by Hayden, but he specifically says 'if we allowed it to burn', so why at this point would Hayden not have the firefighters control the blaze and NOT let it burn as this would stop a collapse as per the engineers answer to the question posed.

basically the only reason the firefighters would fear collapse would be if they let it burn.

(imo) I don't believe it would have been a priority to stop it collapsing that day, given the amount of debris and dead around them already...you can estimate a time of collapse, but never be sure, also there isn't a comparison in structural design to say for sure when collapse would happen. That is one of the mistakes CT'ers make with this case, when they say there isn't a high rise in history that has collapsed by fire they are using examples of high rises made of different materials, designed differently, and don't have the debris surrounding them from 2 fallen towers....there really isn't a comparison to be made between the wtc7 and any other collapsed building previously. I have an extremely hard time believing that any priority would be given to saving a building after the first tower collapsed, and the subsequent deaths it caused. You have to remember they had colleges buried alive a stones throw away....why risk any more fire fighters lives to save a lump of steel!

[quillius]

The Sky Scanner, on 18 January 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

(imo) I don't believe it would have been a priority to stop it collapsing that day, given the amount of debris and dead around them already...you can estimate a time of collapse, but never be sure, also there isn't a comparison in structural design to say for sure when collapse would happen. That is one of the mistakes CT'ers make with this case, when they say there isn't a high rise in history that has collapsed by fire they are using examples of high rises made of different materials, designed differently, and don't have the debris surrounding them from 2 fallen towers....there really isn't a comparison to be made between the wtc7 and any other collapsed building previously. I have an extremely hard time believing that any priority would be given to saving a building after the first tower collapsed, and the subsequent deaths it caused. You have to remember they had colleges buried alive a stones throw away....why risk any more fire fighters lives to save a lump of steel!

Hey Sky, I do actually agree with all your points. The point I was making to Q24 was that the comments of the engineer do not say 'get out its going to collapse', the reason the firefighters are asked to leave would be more likely down to the priorities as you say rather than an imminent threat posed by the possible collapse.

[skyeagle409]

Quote

The Collapse of WTC 7

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.


Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 January 2012 - 03:49 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Firefighter Quote:

"...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."

[Babe Ruth]

RIP Ken Lay and appropriate subordinates!  

Besides the obvious points that Q has shown here regarding prior knowledge, I think the most interesting part of the WTC7 story is the various federal offices, records and so forth, including the SEC and Enron records, that were located inside the building.

Not to mention the NYC Command Center that Rudy had fought so hard to have installed there, over years of objections by the rest of the city council.

Ay, more circumstantial evidence.

[Q24]

quillius, on 18 January 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Yes I understand that it was the question asked by Hayden, but he specifically says 'if we allowed it to burn', so why at this point would Hayden not have the firefighters control the blaze and NOT let it burn as this would stop a collapse as per the engineers answer to the question posed.

basically the only reason the firefighters would fear collapse would be if they let it burn.

Ah I see what you mean.  It would seem the FDNY were not attempting to fight the fire at that point because they had been spooked by the OEM staff member who led them to believe the building was a “lost cause” even at the early time of 11:30am.  Hayden was observing the WTC7 deciding what to do… when enter our unnamed engineer.

The official narrative attempted to claim the reason for not fighting the fire was due to no available water but this is not true.  Whilst the mains supply had been disrupted, there were alternative sources (as used to fight the WTC5 fire) but they never actually tried after 11:30am due to the collapse warning.

skyeagle409, on 18 January 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

Firefighter Quote:

"...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."

Fantastic, sky.

Now go to the opening post of the thread which contains that quote and try to follow the discussion through.

Perhaps even add something constructive.