WTC7

[TSS]

Agreed.

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?

Currid was a Captain, he has at least two ranks above him he has to answer too. You're suggesting that the sole decision was made by an unnamed source telling the Captain, and he just took that on face value and went with it. Are the FDNY really that amateurish then? I assume Currid was sacked the following day then for making decisions based on the advice of an unnamed individual, without any other input or running it past the Battalion Chief or Deputy Chief?

Edited January 20, 2012 by The Sky Scanner

[Q24]

Currid was a Captain, he has at least two ranks above him he has to answer too. You're suggesting that the sole decision was made by an unnamed source telling the Captain, and he just took that on face value and went with it. Are the FDNY really that amateurish then? I assume Currid was sacked the following day then for making decisions based on the advice of an unnamed individual, without any other input or running it past the Battalion Chief or Deputy Chief?

I’m not suggesting who made the call, that’s what you are doing, I’m just accepting what Currid, Hayden and Sunder all reported.

Please keep in mind that the FDNY chain of command was in complete disarray at that point due to the tower collapses. I don’t find it amateurish or a sackable offence that a Captain used his initiative based upon the OEM warning. Every one of the firefighters deserves the highest praise.

Still the question remains, what did the OEM staff know that the FDNY did not?

[TSS]

I’m not suggesting who made the call, that’s what you are doing, I’m just accepting what Currid, Hayden and Sunder all reported.

Please keep in mind that the FDNY chain of command was in complete disarray at that point due to the tower collapses. I don’t find it amateurish or a sackable offence that a Captain used his initiative based upon the OEM warning. Every one of the firefighters deserves the highest praise.

Still the question remains, what did the OEM staff know that the FDNY did not?

Of course they deserve the highest praise...my point was relating to your simplistic view of events that day, i.e

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.

Yet you agree that assessments are made all the time...so you don't know what communications were going back and forth about 'concern'. Has Dan Nigros statements been debunked? I ask because he said he made the call to leave wtc7 alone about 3:30/4:00....that doesn't really tie in with what you said about being confident of collapse at 12pm?

What did the OEM staff know that the FDNY didn't? various things probably, that's the whole idea behind assessing fires, you pull in opinions from all areas, to make an informed decision. I guess if you believe that the decision was made solely on the advice of this unnamed individual then it becomes a pertinent question. I can't see anything to assume that though.

[Babe Ruth]

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.

I was not trying to put words into your mouth.

As I posted earlier, I AM NEUTRAL on the question of DEW. I see now that you are not neutral, that your mind is made up.

I simply find it interesting, and consistent, that NIST and the rest of the government including the judiciary, prefers to sweep the topic under the rug.

[skyeagle409]

This is a message from Chief of Department (ret.) Daniel Nigro, addressing the conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse of WTC7.

Thank you very much for this statement, Mr. Nigro. The work you and your colleagues did will never be forgotten.

Release date: September 23, 2007 Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail.

Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them. For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan NigroChief of Department FDNY (retired)

My link

Edited January 21, 2012 by skyeagle409

[booNyzarC]

^ looks like skyeagle provided an answer for this... Well done sky.

Then please prove it. Provide just one quote which proves any firefighter confidently determined the collapse “all on their own”… just one.

Been very busy with work. Apologies for the delays in responding but I'm not a young man any more and the 60 hour weeks I've been putting in for the last few weeks (and more to come) are taking more out of me than they used to.

That said, do you have any contention with the Daniel Nigro quotes provided by skyeagle?

[Q24]

Of course they deserve the highest praise...my point was relating to your simplistic view of events that day, i.e

Yet you agree that assessments are made all the time...so you don't know what communications were going back and forth about 'concern'. Has Dan Nigros statements been debunked? I ask because he said he made the call to leave wtc7 alone about 3:30/4:00....that doesn't really tie in with what you said about being confident of collapse at 12pm?

The outline I set out is based on all recorded testimony and actions.

The level of concern of the FDNY is apparent in their words and actions where they 1) fought the fire in the building 2) evacuated the building 3) fell back and formed a collapse zone. I’m sure we agree these actions display an increasing concern as set out in the simplified timeline. The on record communications that accompanied each stage are set out by Currid, Hayden and Sunder (as have been quoted) who all confirm that external advisors informed the FDNY the building would collapse.

Your suggestion is that there were communications in which the FDNY made independent judgment, based on their observation, (i.e. not under influence of the above external advisors) that WTC7 would collapse. Yet evidence of this is completely absent from the record and contradicts the statement given by Sunder. It is speculation in defiance of the record. Where is the evidence?

I will address Chief Nigro below.

Been very busy with work. Apologies for the delays in responding but I'm not a young man any more and the 60 hour weeks I've been putting in for the last few weeks (and more to come) are taking more out of me than they used to.

No problem/rush - I only shouted, “booNyyyyy!!!” earlier because bee was driving me nuts

That said, do you have any contention with the Daniel Nigro quotes provided by skyeagle?

You guys are not following the chronological sequence of events – just jumping in at a mid-point that suits and not considering where the collapse warning at any given time actually originated. Chief Nigro made the fallback decision, based on assessment from Chief Fellini, based on assessment from Deputy Chief Hayden, based on assessment from... our unnamed “on the money” engineer.

Please follow: -

Deputy Chief Hayden:

“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.’”

Sunder (when asked where foreknowledge originated):

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

NIST:

“At approximately 1:15 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., the FDNY Chief Officer in charge of operations at WTC 7

[Fellini, to whom Hayden reported]

recommended to his Commanding Officer

[Nigro]

that they should give up on efforts to save WTC 7.”

Chief Nigro:

“The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.”

He based his decision on the appraisals, not an independent viewing of the building. The warning from our unnamed “on the money” engineer (and before that, the OEM staff) was passed through the FDNY grapevine. Of course after the tower collapses and loss of life already, the FDNY took the warnings seriously at each step.

The same is true of every firefighter out there – they were influenced to expect collapse. The FDNY were in the building fighting the fire to begin. Fellini arrived with orders to fight the fire. The fires were initially small and manageable. The unnamed OEM staff introduced information which put them on edge and the unnamed engineer emphasised it. This is why Sunder made the statement he did, placing foreknowledge not with the FDNY but first and foremost with external advisors.

Any advisor or engineer worth their salt would know that fire and external damage could not weaken the columns sufficiently to cause collapse of the whole building. The only way they could accurately determine a complete collapse is through knowledge that a sudden and “extraordinary” event was to occur (NIST’s description, not mine)… and indeed it did.

How on Earth could that unnamed engineer put a five hour time on the collapse? What was he thinking to conclude that time? What did he know was going to happen five hours later? Why five hours? It does not make any sense. There is no way to make such an accurate prediction without knowing of a pre-set event.

[bee]

No problem/rush - I only shouted, “booNyyyyy!!!” earlier because bee was driving me nuts

my TWO posts (previous to when you wailed for booN) were enough to drive you nuts!!!!

perhaps I should put a bit more effort in and send you right over the edge.....

.

[Q24]

my TWO posts (previous to when you wailed for booN) were enough to drive you nuts!!!!

perhaps I should put a bit more effort in and send you right over the edge.....

Damn you saw that comment

Anything relating to DEW/hologram/no plane theories drives me nuts.

And I'm not clicking your vid

[bee]

Damn you saw that comment

Anything relating to DEW/hologram/no plane theories drives me nuts.

I'm only interested in DEWs...not holograms and no-plane stuff.

And I'm not clicking your vid

yeah yeah......bet you do

enjoy your Sunday afternoon Q24

.

[TSS]

The outline I set out is based on all recorded testimony and actions.

The level of concern of the FDNY is apparent in their words and actions where they 1) fought the fire in the building 2) evacuated the building 3) fell back and formed a collapse zone. I’m sure we agree these actions display an increasing concern as set out in the simplified timeline. The on record communications that accompanied each stage are set out by Currid, Hayden and Sunder (as have been quoted) who all confirm that external advisors informed the FDNY the building would collapse.

Your suggestion is that there were communications in which the FDNY made independent judgment, based on their observation, (i.e. not under influence of the above external advisors) that WTC7 would collapse. Yet evidence of this is completely absent from the record and contradicts the statement given by Sunder. It is speculation in defiance of the record. Where is the evidence?

I will address Chief Nigro below.

No problem/rush - I only shouted, “booNyyyyy!!!” earlier because bee was driving me nuts

You guys are not following the chronological sequence of events – just jumping in at a mid-point that suits and not considering where the collapse warning at any given time actually originated. Chief Nigro made the fallback decision, based on assessment from Chief Fellini, based on assessment from Deputy Chief Hayden, based on assessment from... our unnamed “on the money” engineer.

Please follow: -

Deputy Chief Hayden:

“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.’”

Sunder (when asked where foreknowledge originated):

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

NIST:

“At approximately 1:15 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., the FDNY Chief Officer in charge of operations at WTC 7

[Fellini, to whom Hayden reported]

recommended to his Commanding Officer

[Nigro]

that they should give up on efforts to save WTC 7.”

Chief Nigro:

“The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.”

He based his decision on the appraisals, not an independent viewing of the building. The warning from our unnamed “on the money” engineer (and before that, the OEM staff) was passed through the FDNY grapevine. Of course after the tower collapses and loss of life already, the FDNY took the warnings seriously at each step.

The same is true of every firefighter out there – they were influenced to expect collapse. The FDNY were in the building fighting the fire to begin. Fellini arrived with orders to fight the fire. The fires were initially small and manageable. The unnamed OEM staff introduced information which put them on edge and the unnamed engineer emphasised it. This is why Sunder made the statement he did, placing foreknowledge not with the FDNY but first and foremost with external advisors.

Any advisor or engineer worth their salt would know that fire and external damage could not weaken the columns sufficiently to cause collapse of the whole building. The only way they could accurately determine a complete collapse is through knowledge that a sudden and “extraordinary” event was to occur (NIST’s description, not mine)… and indeed it did.

How on Earth could that unnamed engineer put a five hour time on the collapse? What was he thinking to conclude that time? What did he know was going to happen five hours later? Why five hours? It does not make any sense. There is no way to make such an accurate prediction without knowing of a pre-set event.

No I wasn't suggesting the FDNY made an independent judgement, I was saying the judgement would have been made with many factors and opinions being sought....but ultimately it would have been their call to make.

Nigro's statement confused me because it doesn't show any concerned at the 12pm time you outlined...but now you have laid your thinking out I follow what you're saying..

I haven't found anything to suggest they were under external pressure to agree with that 5hr time line, so it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if they disagreed and continued to fight the fire!...I wonder if this 'extraordinary' event would have still happened! No way of knowing obviously...

[Q24]

No I wasn't suggesting the FDNY made an independent judgement, I was saying the judgement would have been made with many factors and opinions being sought....but ultimately it would have been their call to make.

Nigro's statement confused me because it doesn't show any concerned at the 12pm time you outlined...but now you have laid your thinking out I follow what you're saying..

I haven't found anything to suggest they were under external pressure to agree with that 5hr time line, so it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if they disagreed and continued to fight the fire!...I wonder if this 'extraordinary' event would have still happened! No way of knowing obviously...

I agree the decision to evacuate and fall back rested with the FDNY, in particular Chief Nigro who had assumed overall command. The FDNY were not pressured to make the call though do appear to have been heavily influenced in their decision making and action. It was a straightforward decison once such confident collapse warning was introduced from external sources – the FDNY were not going to be blasé about it at that point.

It is an interesting question - what would have occurred if the unnamed OEM staff had not initially scared-off the firefighters? According to the official theory, all the firefighters had to do was prevent the fire reaching the north-east of the building before 3 p.m. and the collapse could not have initiated (that was the area with the long-span floors and isolated column which allowed the “extraordinary” event – a single unsupported column – to lead to virtually symmetrical, near freefall collapse of the entire structure). This is miraculously what the unnamed engineer predicted would happen five hours later? Yet they didn’t even need to put the fire out – just stop it spreading.

This may even have prevented the eventual demolition had firefighters been all over the building disrupting the plan.

[Babe Ruth]

One of the most curious aspects of the WTC7 affair is just why Mayor Giuliani fought the entire city council for a number of years to have the OEM command center placed in that building?

The more logical place for that center, and the consensus of the city council, was someplace near the wharves, I think along the East River.

I wonder why the mayor was so adamant on that point, and I wonder if that ultimately had anything to do with the decisions made by FDNY?

[skyeagle409]

This may even have prevented the eventual demolition had firefighters been all over the building disrupting the plan.

With all of those firefighters inside WTC 7, no one reported planted explosives nor was there evidence of planted explosives found.

Edited January 23, 2012 by skyeagle409

[booNyzarC]

With all of those firefighters inside WTC 7, no one reported planted explosives nor was there evidence of planted explosives found.

That's because they were super secret military grade never discussed before or since explosives. They were obviously completely hidden from view and planted to detonate in such a way as to mimic a natural collapse instead of a controlled demolition, while still somewhat resembling a controlled demolition from certain camera angles, in order to hide the fact that it was a controlled demolition. Aren't you keeping up sky?

How else could the building have come down? I mean really, they predicted that it would collapse 5 or 6 hours before the actual collapse so that they could get the fire fighters out of harms way before pulling the trigger. They'd already caused enough deaths by bringing down the two towers, they didn't need more in order to initiate the war on terror. It was like... a last moment action of conscience or something. They obviously had foreknowledge or else they wouldn't have warned off those fire fighters and got all those people out.

And then they leaked the story to the press before the fact, so that they would report on it because really all of the press were following other stories for the day and they needed more coverage. Right? There were just not enough reporters focused on the secret evil government's hidden facilitated attacks intended to bring funding in to fuel the military industrial complex and their master plan for world domination and global tyranny, so they gave the main stream media a big head's up so that they could trick the populace into accepting the lies that this was actually a terrorist attack.

It makes perfect sense.

[skyeagle409]

That's because they were super secret military grade never discussed before or since explosives. They were obviously completely hidden from view and planted to detonate in such a way as to mimic a natural collapse instead of a controlled demolition, while still somewhat resembling a controlled demolition from certain camera angles, in order to hide the fact that it was a controlled demolition. Aren't you keeping up sky? How else could the building have come down?

I will answer that!

The building in this video contained a top secret computer, which held top secret information in regards to a $160,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.24 government overrun, so special ops troopers in civilian clothing, so as not to draw attention, were ordered to demolish the building in order to destroy the evidence. Here is that video, so if I get that midnight knock on the door, you will know why.

You will notice that the building falls straight down and in addition, there is undenial proof that there was foreknowledge the building was coming down..

Edited January 23, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

It makes perfect sense.

The WTC7 demolition makes every sense once it is chosen to apply a bit of thought.

Ok, now we have established that the evidence shows foreknowledge of collapse originated with our annonymous individuals, we can move onto the second part: how was the foreknowledge determined? That requires an answer to the question I set out here: -

How on Earth could that unnamed engineer put a five hour time on the collapse? What was he thinking to conclude that time? What did he know was going to happen five hours later? Why five hours?

I would answer very simply that the engineer knew of the forthcoming demolition. Obviously it is possible to accurately foretell the how and when (complete collapse, five hours) of a pre-determined event. I will further add that it is completely irrational to place a five hour countdown on the collapse for any other reason.

Can anyone make an alternative suggestion, backed with some type of engineering rationale, for the “on the money” prediction?

[TSS]

In the UK, officers of the rank of Station Officer and higher would (as part of their Officer Command training packages) be taught to look for/ and estimate times of collapse, engineers would be present on these courses and could to a reasonable degree of accuracy give a time frame for collapse if the variables didn't change from an agreed route. For the fire fighters this was agreed upon to not[/b be an exact science, as the variables rarely if ever stayed the same as predicted. They were doing this 35yrs ago when my grandfather was Divisional Officer...and updated and improved the training by the time my father received his training. The idea was to obviously let fire fighters take advice when on the scene, but the officers in charge to be aware as to not take this advice as a given, it's just a rough heads up if anything. Just saying...

[Babe Ruth]

Scanner

If there are no previous examples of modern high rise steel structures having collapsed due to fire, how and why would the Brits be taught to look for signs of such an event?

That is, how can an organization train for an event unknown to man?

[booNyzarC]

Ok, now we have established that the evidence shows foreknowledge of collapse originated with our annonymous individuals...

Hold on there...

We haven't established foreknowledge at all Q24.

You've interpreted the evidence to mean foreknowledge, but your interpretation isn't the only one. It could just as easily indicate an educated guess after collaborative discussion about the condition of the building. We just don't have a definitive answer for this Q, surely you must see that.

[Babe Ruth]

Alas, the demise of common sense!

Alas, the demise of common sense!

[Q24]

In the UK, officers of the rank of Station Officer and higher would (as part of their Officer Command training packages) be taught to look for/ and estimate times of collapse, engineers would be present on these courses and could to a reasonable degree of accuracy give a time frame for collapse if the variables didn't change from an agreed route. For the fire fighters this was agreed upon to not[/b be an exact science, as the variables rarely if ever stayed the same as predicted. They were doing this 35yrs ago when my grandfather was Divisional Officer...and updated and improved the training by the time my father received his training. The idea was to obviously let fire fighters take advice when on the scene, but the officers in charge to be aware as to not take this advice as a given, it's just a rough heads up if anything. Just saying...

I would ask similar to Babe Ruth – what observations would allow the collapse of a high-rise steel framed structure to be predicted to any degree of accuracy? It had never happened before. The condition of the structure never visibly deteriorated from the time it was struck by the WTC1 falling debris right up to the time it collapsed - there was nothing to observe indicating the whole building would come down.

And again, what specific engineering rationale is there for “five hours”? It’s not like the fire can burn in any one location for a continuous five hours. And even if it could heat in one location for five hours, there is no reason to believe that weakening of a single column would bring the entire structure down.

I don’t think people realise just how far-out the WTC7 official collapse theory is. NIST say that soon as that one sinlge column is taken out, the whole structure will collapse. Twenty-four huge core columns and the loss of just one instantaneously brings it all crashing down? Wow that was a dangerous building.

Hold on there...

We haven't established foreknowledge at all Q24.

You've interpreted the evidence to mean foreknowledge, but your interpretation isn't the only one. It could just as easily indicate an educated guess after collaborative discussion about the condition of the building. We just don't have a definitive answer for this Q, surely you must see that.

We have established an extremely high level of on-scene confidence that WTC7 would collapse and that this originated with the annonymous individuals mentioned. We have established that those initial warnings influenced the actions and decisions of the FDNY. Now we need to know how the warnings were so confident. It doesn't even matter if you want to call the “five hour” warning an “educated guess”… what rationale was it based on?

[TSS]

Scanner

If there are no previous examples of modern high rise steel structures having collapsed due to fire, how and why would the Brits be taught to look for signs of such an event?

That is, how can an organization train for an event unknown to man?

So what you are asking is, despite the fact steel has been used in buildings for many many years, just because a high rise of the exact construction of WTC7 hasn't collapsed before, their training package for accessing such situations (even in low level buildings) would have steel missing from it's training package? Are you being serious or just splitting hairs?

[TSS]

I would ask similar to Babe Ruth – what observations would allow the collapse of a high-rise steel framed structure to be predicted to any degree of accuracy? It had never happened before. The condition of the structure never visibly deteriorated from the time it was struck by the WTC1 falling debris right up to the time it collapsed - there was nothing to observe indicating the whole building would come down.

And again, what specific engineering rationale is there for “five hours”? It’s not like the fire can burn in any one location for a continuous five hours. And even if it could heat in one location for five hours, there is no reason to believe that weakening of a single column would bring the entire structure down.

I don’t think people realise just how far-out the WTC7 official collapse theory is. NIST say that soon as that one sinlge column is taken out, the whole structure will collapse. Twenty-four huge core columns and the loss of just one instantaneously brings it all crashing down? Wow that was a dangerous building.

I'm not an engineer Q, so how one column could effect the others isn't something I can comment on, and even if something doesn't sound right to me at first glance, well, so what, I certainly wouldn't try and formulate a theory on an event when I don't have that key piece of expertise to make an educate assessment of it.

I think you read to much into my post, I didn't say that this training meant they could predict the collapse of WTC7, I mentioned it because there seems quite a bit of guessing going on about whether the fire officers could make a determination of collapse (in conjunction with onsite engineers), and whether or not an unnamed engineer is key to the fire brigades decisions and actions....i'm merely pointing out that over here that is very much part of the training when you get to the Rank of Station Officer and above (3 ranks up from a fire fighter)...I'd be surprised if the US didn't do the same...

Edited January 25, 2012 by The Sky Scanner

[booNyzarC]

Alas, the demise of common sense!

Alas, the demise of common sense!

Yes, we've seen your posts. We already know.

We have established an extremely high level of on-scene confidence that WTC7 would collapse and that this originated with the annonymous individuals mentioned. We have established that those initial warnings influenced the actions and decisions of the FDNY. Now we need to know how the warnings were so confident. It doesn't even matter if you want to call the “five hour” warning an “educated guess”… what rationale was it based on?

We don't know, and no amount of guessing will change that.