These actions do not necessarily suggest a 'minor concern' as you are stating what firefighters' jobs are; they have a habit of trying to help people get out of burning buildings alive, sometimes even when there is a non-minor concern that they are risking their lives. You list a bunch of actions they took, but when did they take them?
The point, and I think you miss this continually, is that the firefighter level of concern and actions altered at each step after external advice – the firefighters did not abandon WTC7 of their own accord but because that is what they were influenced to do.
You don't have evidence that the sole suspicion that the building would come down came from this advisor. If you think the concern was truly non-existent, then why is Hayden even discussing the possibility of collapse with the advisors?
We have evidence the advisor(s) influenced the FDNY to believe WTC7 would collapse. We have no evidence the FDNY made independent judgement the building would collapse. I’m accepting the limit of what’s there on record.
Hayden was influenced to suspect a collapse even prior to his discussion with the “on the money” advisor. It flows from the account of Michael Currid that we have seen. An OEM advisor scared the FDNY out of the building at around 11:30am with the warning there was a serious danger of collapse. When Hayden arrived on scene, he encountered the withdrawing firefighters. From the NIST report: -
"When the Chief Officer in charge of WTC 7 got to Barclay Street and West Broadway, numerous firefighters and officers were coming out of WTC 7. These firefighters indicated that several blocks needed to be cleared around WTC 7 because they thought that the building was going to collapse."
So we see that initial warning from the OEM advisor affected the firefighters on scene and, indirectly, Hayden upon his arrival. That is reason Hayden discussed the possibility of collapse with the advisor. It is the advisor(s) that wanted the FDNY away from the building.
Funny you should mention that. It’s something I’ve nearly raised a couple of times but didn’t want to distract from the WTC7 foreknowledge.
First, it is correct the collapse of the twin towers was a surprise. Even Bazant stated, “To structural engineers, the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on 9/11/2001 came as the greatest surprise…” To the trained and experienced FDNY, the global collapse of the towers obviously came as a surprise also. Keep this at the forefront of your mind.
So why do we have another advisor on scene (or was it the same advisor as for WTC7? Anonymous, once again), confidently predicting the tower collapses and seeking to influence the FDNY beforehand? And why didn't the official investigation seek out these clairvoyants?
Here is the account of John Perruggia from the NYT oral histories: -
"Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building’s stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.
I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located. Told him where it was across the street from number 1 World Trade Center. I told him "You see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information that the building integrity is severely compromised and they believe the building is in danger of imminent collapse." So, he left off in that direction."
Contrast the following two statements from above, and you see why I’m asking questions: -
- “To structural engineers, the collapse of the World Trade Center … came as the greatest surprise…”
- “Some engineer type person … very confident … the building is in danger of imminent collapse.”
"who the **** told you that?"
"who would tell you something like that?"
"who are we getting these reports from?
Understandable shock, disdain and confusion.
So to clarify, this is the twin tower situation: -
- Not one of the FDNY personnel expected collapse.
- All of the responders displayed some surprise at the information.
- The information was not their own deduction but was passed up the chain of command.
- This foreknowledge of collapse was not based on firefighter observation.
- The foreknowledge originated from an anonymous advisor.
It was still not that the advice was founded in engineering rationale, see above, more that the WTC7 advice was never going to be disregarded, and nor should it have been, later in the day after the tower collapses.
Okay, unless I'm missing something, this whole 'pre-emptive' media reports 'argument' is pretty weak. You think the idea that the hypothesis that this is foreknowledge is more likely than the case that the media has made yet another mistake which it does all the time? There's a running gag concerning whether the actor Abe Vigoda is alive or dead, after he was twice mistakenly referred to as deceased by the media; I've seen death reports periodically of other celebs that are later retracted. The media is incentivized to be the first with 'breaking news!', so of course they make mistakes. And this is surprising during the most chaotic event and probably most media-covered event? Worse, how does the idea of including in our proposed plot the order that the media be notified by our conspirators that WTC7 has collapsed fit in to anything? Why would they take it upon themselves to do this and not just let the building collapse and the media report on it? Yet another bonehead conspirator who isn't waiting for the building to collapse before notifying the media; all he had to do was look at a television.
I think the pre-emptive media reports are further evidence of the rising foreknowledge on scene shortly before the building went down – so confident that it misled reporters to believe the event had already occurred. And it is not only the incorrect report that is interesting. The expectation was so certain it led CNN to change their caption from the speculative, "may collapse" to the foreboding, "on verge of collapse"... just 15 minutes prior the actual collapse. There was no change in the building condition at that time. Yet reporters accurately predicted the “extraordinary” first time ever event to occur 15 minutes beforehand? It appears that reporters picked up on the confidence on scene which some possessed.
That may be because 'confident foreknowledge' may not be an accurate term for what went on, and of course presumes exactly what I'm disputing.
- “pretty much right on the money”
- “pretty sure”
- “on verge of collapse”
- “adamant about 7 coming down”
- “7 was definitely going to collapse”
- “it’ll be coming down soon"
- “building is about to blow up”
You are making this impossible to prove because you won’t accept what’s there.
But a bulge is evidence of structural deformation. Why do you think that our firefighters, and advisors who I don't think are actually on the scene, believe that they themselves have all the data they need to determine the danger of collapse to such a confident degree that they can reasonably be sure that there's no chance of a collapse and more firefighter deaths?
The firefighters did not have all of the data – along with the advisor(s) warnings, that is why a concern of collapse existed. Why do you think firefighters had the data to determine the danger of collapse to such a confident degree that they can reasonably be sure that there's a [insert “adamant”/”imminent”/”definite”] collapse coming?
You obviously do not know that the firefighters would not have halted operations at WTC7 in a different reality.
Independently the FDNY certainly would not have halted firefighting operations when they did – see account of Michael Currid - it was the advisor warning that prompted the initial evacuation.
Of course there's going to be urgency at even the suggestion of an imminent collapse, it's their lives on the line. This part of your analysis seems to rely on an assemblage of messages being passed from person to person (I'm sure you are aware of the degradation of the message as it is passed on, a la, the Telephone Game (also called 'chinese whispers' I guess)) and that the parties involved have enough data to know that it won't collapse. And for no reason that I can think of ignores the most pertinent context of what had actually happened, the impact of those events on everyone's decision-making processes, the chaos and fear and confusion involved, and what was at stake for those at the scene.
No, the urgency increased significantly drawing nearer to the collapse time – the appearance is that some on scene knew the collapse was due. You say, of course there’s going to be urgency? Though many firefighters displayed the opposite upon receipt of the warning: “oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out?” And an increasing urgency that reaches its crescendo shortly before the collapse? This isn’t making sense in context of an unpredictable event, it’s making sense in context of a pre-planned event.
I'm really confused on these; the quotes indicate a plan to intentionally bring the building down that the firefighters knew about at the time? I'm having trouble fitting that data point in, you're not suggesting FDNY was in on the demolition?
Yes some firefighters clearly knew there was a plan in the works. This has already been confirmed through the news article which described Silverstein seeking authorisation for demolition of WTC7 on the morning: "Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option."
I am suggesting that some firefighters had reason to believe the building was going to be demolished. It seems that way (“we’re gonna have to bring it down”/“There's a building, about to blow up”) doesn’t it?
This plan and foreknowledge also frame Silverstein’s “pull it” comment in a whole new light. I’ve been avoiding that topic – it’s been gone over a thousand times - though to me the language used, logic and surrounding circumstances indicate that “it” refers to the building.
All the official story later had to do, is convince the firefighters and public that fire beat the demolition to it.
You see I don’t think the powers that be were intent on selling the official WTC7 story as we now know it, not from the beginning. As discussed, the demolition, the way it went, was ‘Plan B’ – it would seem better for them had WTC7 come down at the same time as the north tower. I think the plan was to remain tight-lipped and see how the situation panned out with the media, emergency departments on scene and public – this is why there was no ‘official story’ for so long. When it became clear the demolition could be hidden under guise of a fire based collapse, that is what the powers that be went with – there were less questions to answer that way, not to mention limiting further suspicion of the tower demolitions. But then Silverstein became too publicly candid of his experience. That does make me wonder how close Silverstein was to the operation planners – though I’ve said before he was more a pawn to smooth the aftermath.
Here’s another piece of information I’ve not mentioned on this thread yet: -
"I do know that that [WTC7] wall I remember was in danger, and I think that they made that decision based on the danger that it had of destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion.”
~John Kerry, 2004 U.S. Presidential candidate
Wherever did Kerry get that idea?
I really think there are more people who know about the WTC7 demolition than any other covered-up area on 9/11 but, either through subversion of the official story or political pressures, are not letting on. It’s a strange one, WTC7, whereby there is potential for a demolition which is not necessarily nefarious but fits with the rest of the official 9/11 story (much like a Flight 93 shootdown). And I have heard from official story adherents who do accept both the WTC7 demolition and Flight 93 shootdown. Though official acceptance of these alternatives would now open a can of worms and stoke conspiracy fires ever higher…
If the public can be so readily deceived in those areas, what else of the official story might not be the whole truth?
Edited by Q24, 24 August 2012 - 04:33 PM.