Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Gravitorbox

Question about 9/11

198 posts in this topic

First I'm going to say I don't really regard myself as a 9/11 truther, but I admit Tower 7's collapse seems rather suspicious. I heard here and there that the tower was hit by debris and/or collapsed due to fire, but it still seems weird.

However, a question I have for the truthers:

Let's assume you are correct and 9/11 was a conspiracy. Generally proponents of the 9/11 truth movement claim that the buildings were destroyed by the U.S. government to justify wars in the middle east. That would mean the motive was to scare us into going to war, right? Well why exactly did they feel the need to destroy Tower 7? Wouldn't the twin towers be enough?

A lot of people don't even realize Tower 7 even existed, why even waste the effort of blowing up one of the random outlying buildings at the World Trade Center if they're not even going to bother having a plane crash into it as a cover and relatively few people are going to notice it over Tower 1 and 2? It just doesn't seem to make sense to me that they'd go through extra effort to destroy Tower 7 at least in accordance to the supposed motives for the conspiracy.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a reason it was called ground zero . Everything is a certain radius,and or considered part of the WTC, was just decimated . To destroy all of this over ,but leave that standing,might have even seemed suspect ....

I actually don't know this for sure . None of it seemed natural at the time,especially to me,given I was at the first bombing in 93 ,and that didn't even make a dent in structure .... ,but we were too preoccupied to comment I guess.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a video on youtube showing WTC on fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how people select only the off sides to show the building burning! Ever wonder what the side faceing the Towers Looked Like? Its where all the falling debris came through the other side`s ! THis Is what caused the Fires ! encroachment of debris !

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how people select only the off sides to show the building burning! Ever wonder what the side faceing the Towers Looked Like? Its where all the falling debris came through the other side`s ! THis Is what caused the Fires ! encroachment of debris !

There is a front side where its also on fire i think and better quality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@ Gravitorbox,

The standard response right now would be that there were a few financial and insurance related institutions located there at the time, as well as the I.R.S., U.S Secret Service, NYC Emergency Management, I.N.S., etc., etc...

However, for the most part these were small branch offices and not integral to the whole.

In my humble opinion, WTC7 came down as a result of falling incendiary debris.

/Great! Just what we need, another 9/11 thread! *shakes head*

//Edit: Sorry for the short, snide answer. You ask a valid question. :)

Edited by Likely Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gravitor

If one considers the historical perspective, one of the interesting points is that Mayor Giuliani fought the NY City Council for years to have the Emergency Operations Center located in WTC7. It was his pet project, and the feud is well documented in NYT. The council wanted to locate it over on the East Side somewhere, down by the wharves as I recall. Finally the Council gave up, and Rudy had his way.

I suspect there was a reason he wanted that, and I suspect it had to do with what was going to eventually happen. Pure speculation on my part, but I suspect the command center for command detonated explosives were in WTC7, and that was why it had to be destroyed.

But also the Enron records were there, and probably a collection of other incriminating evidence. And of course Brother Larry made a neat profit on his insurance gamble. Some call it Jewish Lightning, and others call it insurance fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Gravitorbox,

The standard response right now would be that there were a few financial and insurance related institutions located there at the time, as well as the I.R.S., U.S Secret Service, NYC Emergency Management, I.N.S., etc., etc...

However, for the most part these were small branch offices and not integral to the whole.

In my humble opinion, WTC7 came down as a result of falling incendiary debris.

/Great! Just what we need, another 9/11 thread! *shakes head*

//Edit: Sorry for the short, snide answer. You ask a valid question. :)

The main institution in that building was the EEOC . It's also the one that always has a lot of civilians in the offices .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We still don't the "whole truth" of JFK's assassination, despite almost 50 years of conspiracy theorists and theories.

We may never know the "whole truth" of 9/11.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main institution in that building was the EEOC . It's also the one that always has a lot of civilians in the offices .

The entire building was evacuated several hours before it collapsed. In fact, it was claimed that WTC 7 had zero casualties.

Bringing up the factoid that many civilians frequented WTC 7 really is moot considering the facts of the collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect there was a reason he wanted that, and I suspect it had to do with what was going to eventually happen. Pure speculation on my part, but I suspect the command center for command detonated explosives were in WTC7, and that was why it had to be destroyed.

But, there were no explosives involved in the destruction of WTC7. The use of explosives was all a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I'm going to say I don't really regard myself as a 9/11 truther, but I admit Tower 7's collapse seems rather suspicious. I heard here and there that the tower was hit by debris and/or collapsed due to fire, but it still seems weird.

Shouldn't be weird considering what firefighters have said.

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, 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.

* Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

* Boyle: "A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on.So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, 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.

However, a question I have for the truthers:

Let's assume you are correct and 9/11 was a conspiracy. Generally proponents of the 9/11 truth movement claim that the buildings were destroyed by the U.S. government to justify wars in the middle east. That would mean the motive was to scare us into going to war, right? Well why exactly did they feel the need to destroy Tower 7? Wouldn't the twin towers be enough?

A lot of people don't even realize Tower 7 even existed, why even waste the effort of blowing up one of the random outlying buildings at the World Trade Center if they're not even going to bother having a plane crash into it as a cover and relatively few people are going to notice it over Tower 1 and 2? It just doesn't seem to make sense to me that they'd go through extra effort to destroy Tower 7 at least in accordance to the supposed motives for the conspiracy.

I wanted to mention that WTC1 was bombed in 1993 yet the United States didn't go to war. Terrorist blew up our embassies in Kenya and in Tanzania yet the United States didn't go to war. Terrorist blew up the USS Cole yet the United States didn't go to war. Terrorist blew up Pan Am 103 yet the United States didn't go to war. There were other attacks that killed Americans yet the United States didn't go to war.

We must remember that Osama bin Laden declared war upon the United States and as a result, it cost him his life and the lives of a number of senior al-Qaeda leaders and members.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a reason it was called ground zero . Everything is a certain radius,and or considered part of the WTC, was just decimated . To destroy all of this over ,but leave that standing,might have even seemed suspect ....

I actually don't know this for sure . None of it seemed natural at the time,especially to me,given I was at the first bombing in 93 ,and that didn't even make a dent in structure .... ,but we were too preoccupied to comment I guess.

In 1993, a huge bomb was detonated beneath WTC1 and yet the building remained standing despite the fact that structural columns were standing in the huge crater. There are those who seem to think that explosives brought down the WTC buildings in 2001, which simply wasn't true at all. Preparing tall buildings for demolition requires many months of preparation, which could not have taken place unnoticed inside the WTC buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We still don't the "whole truth" of JFK's assassination, despite almost 50 years of conspiracy theorists and theories.

We may never know the "whole truth" of 9/11.

I agree completely--the whole truth will never be known by the public. That's why I'm content just to know that it's a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely--the whole truth will never be known by the public. That's why I'm content just to know that it's a lie.

It is well known that facts and evidence support the official story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love it ! "THe Whole truth ,nothing but the truth" WHEre Have I heard that?

We know what happened to the Twin Towers,and all the Aircraft that were lost that day.

Now REMEMBER THE PEOPLE? :innocent:

Give it a rest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I'm going to say I don't really regard myself as a 9/11 truther, but I admit Tower 7's collapse seems rather suspicious. I heard here and there that the tower was hit by debris and/or collapsed due to fire, but it still seems weird.

However, a question I have for the truthers:

Let's assume you are correct and 9/11 was a conspiracy. Generally proponents of the 9/11 truth movement claim that the buildings were destroyed by the U.S. government to justify wars in the middle east. That would mean the motive was to scare us into going to war, right? Well why exactly did they feel the need to destroy Tower 7? Wouldn't the twin towers be enough?

A lot of people don't even realize Tower 7 even existed, why even waste the effort of blowing up one of the random outlying buildings at the World Trade Center if they're not even going to bother having a plane crash into it as a cover and relatively few people are going to notice it over Tower 1 and 2? It just doesn't seem to make sense to me that they'd go through extra effort to destroy Tower 7 at least in accordance to the supposed motives for the conspiracy.

Hi Gravitorbox,

I’m glad to hear that you are aware of WTC7 and consider the collapse to be suspicious. Indeed it was suspicious, these type of modern, steel-framed skyscrapers are designed to withstand fire situations and certainly should not enter a ‘domino’ and then ‘global’ collapse with the initial loss of a few floor supports (as the official NIST theory claims).

Perhaps you have looked into the many examples of similar high-rises where fires were more widespread and burned for longer? This included cases where fire-proofing was knocked-off and damage sustained to secondary structure, yet those buildings did not come close to the demolition imitating collapse exhibited by WTC7. And please don’t be fooled by examples of sub-standard buildings or where partial collapses occurred dissimilar to WTC7.

Of course what we have learnt since 9/11, is that the complete collapse of WTC7 earlier on the day was a foregone conclusion to many responders on site. How could this be with no precedent; when no such building fire situation had ever in history caused such a collapse; when NIST admit their own theory is extraordinary/unexpected? Why did the same concern not exist for the more extensively fire affected WTC6? The fact that numerous individuals there that day were aware of a WTC7 demolition option might have something to do with it, including the building owner who had been on the phone discussing that demolition option with his insurer.

A huge volume more can be said but perhaps I’m repeating what you already know, so onto your question of motive. In my opinion there are two real theories for the WTC7 demolition to consider (perhaps both can apply): -

  • The first necessitates an open mind to a 9/11 false flag and suggests that the operations base for the attack was in fact NYC mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s much reported, reinforced ‘command bunker’ within WTC7 (which Babe Ruth mentioned on the last page). There are a number of reasons for this suggestion as well as the presence of the ‘command bunker’ itself, e.g. Giuliani is on the same page as the Neocon politicians more commonly accused of being behind the attack, it was Giuliani who ordered the rapid clean-up of evidence at ground zero and it was from Giuliani’s office that precognitive knowledge of both the towers’ and WTC7’s collapses came. The intention of the WTC7 demolition was therefore not only to quickly destroy existence of potential documents and equipment at the location, but also to rapidly disband the team responsible for the operation, not dissimilar to setting alight the getaway vehicle after the heist.

  • The second theory, which may work in conjunction with the above, concerns the building owner, Larry Silverstein, and follows the money trail. Now I think most people are aware of Silverstein’s “pull it” comment in regard to WTC7 and I already mentioned the phone call to his insurer on 9/11 seeking authorisation to demolish the building. Likewise I think most people are aware that Silverstein purchased the WTC towers’ and considerably upped the insurance coverage a mere six weeks prior to 9/11. Interesting that both the individuals who recommended privatization of the towers and oversaw the lease-transfer to Silverstein were like-minded Zionist businessmen. However, WTC7 is a separate issue; owned by Silverstein since its construction in the 1980s and insured separate to the towers. Here in isolation it is clear that Silverstein made a profit through the destruction of the building. Please follow...

The old WTC7 was valued at
$861
million (this is the insurance payout Silverstein received). Silverstein still owed
$489
million on the old building and also put
$225
million into construction of the new WTC7. As you can see, that left Silverstein
$147
million in pocket. The other effect it had was to effectively exchange the remaining
$489
million loan still owed on the old building to a low-cost, taxpayer funded, liberty bond repayment of
$475
million through the Port Authority on the new WTC7.

Silverstein used the same tactic of requesting the Port Authority fund rebuilding when it came to the rest of the WTC complex, which the Port Authority described as
“outrageous”
and led prominent individuals to make such statements: -

"
It was clearly an indication of the
greed involved
and not really in the public interest
"

Port Authority Vice Chairman, Charles Gargano.

Larry Silverstein is a fine developer and a good New orker, but he must now put aside his individual
profit motive

Senator Charles Schumer.

“Our ardent desire to move forward expeditiously must not be used as leverage by Larry Silverstein for his financial demands

~NYC Governor, George Pataki

In all it appears beneficial to Silverstein that WTC7 should fall along with the other WTC structures he owned. So how convenient that WTC7 was the single building that just happened to fall outside of the WTC Plaza: -

WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan_(building_7_highlighted).jpg

I hope that suggests answers to your questions Gravitorbox. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts, happy to discuss any of the above and if you have any questions or require further links/information, please let me know.

Of course WTC7 was demolished though unfortunately many people remain unaware of the detailed facts.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I’m glad to hear that you are aware of WTC7 and consider the collapse to be suspicious. Indeed it was suspicious, these type of modern, steel-framed skyscrapers are designed to withstand fire situations and certainly should not enter a ‘domino’ and then ‘global’ collapse with the initial loss of a few floor supports (as the official NIST theory claims).

Nothing suspicious. The collapse of WTC7 simply followed the laws of physics, which was indicated when witnesses reported a huge bulge on WTC7, ragging fires within WTC7, and a huge gaping hole on the south side of the building. Firefighters noted the damage and noises from within WTC7 and made the decision to pull back people from WTC7 because they knew that WTC7 was in danger of collapsing.

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse...e/gz/boyle.html

Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, 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

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

http://www.firehouse...ine/towers.html

And of course, during the collapse of WTC7, no sounds of bomb explosions were heard and no evidence of explosive hardware was ever found in the rubble of WTC7.

Verdict: No explosives.

Perhaps you have looked into the many examples of similar high-rises where fires were more widespread and burned for longer? This included cases where fire-proofing was knocked-off and damage sustained to secondary structure, yet those buildings did not come close to the demolition imitating collapse exhibited by WTC7.

You've said; "Demolition imitating collapse exhibited by WTC7?!" Let's do a review and please point out the time line where bomb explosions are heard as WTC7 collapses.

[media=]

[/media]

As WTC7 collapsed, no sound of bomb explosions were heard at any time which simply means no explosives were used.

Of course what we have learnt since 9/11, is that the complete collapse of WTC7 earlier on the day was a foregone conclusion to many responders on site. How could this be with no precedent; when no such building fire situation had ever in history caused such a collapse; when NIST admit their own theory is extraordinary/unexpected? Why did the same concern not exist for the more extensively fire affected WTC6? The fact that numerous individuals there that day were aware of a WTC7 demolition option might have something to do with it, including the building owner who had been on the phone discussing that demolition option with his insurer.

Since it has now be determined that no explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings, how likely would it have been for Mr. Silverstein to time the demolition of WTC7 with the strikes against WTC1, WTC2, the Pentagon and the crash of United 93?

Answer: Not likely at all.

Your post is just another prime example of many of how unfounded conspiracy theories are hatched. As far as the 911 attack is concerned; No false flag, no explosives.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post is just another prime example of many of how unfounded conspiracy theories are hatched. As far as the 911 attack is concerned; No false flag, no explosives.

Actually if you check, my post is a prime example of facts and logical thought.

Your post is: -

1)
a misunderstanding of the demolition theory (where explosives were not required to initiate the collapse) and

2)
a misrepresentation that the FDNY determined WTC7 would collapse of their independent judgement (which, knowing the events and details behind the quotes you provided, shows they were actually advised and influenced by anonymous individuals from Giuliani’s ‘command bunker’).

If Gravitorbox or anyone else has questions about this I’d be happy to address them.

skyeagle, I’ve already put you straight on it numerous times but you continue to ignore the information.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually if you check, my post is a prime example of facts and logical thought.

Your post is: -

1)
a misunderstanding of the demolition theory (where explosives were not required to initiate the collapse) and

2)
a misrepresentation that the FDNY determined WTC7 would collapse of their independent judgement (which, knowing the events and details behind the quotes you provided, shows they were actually advised and influenced by anonymous individuals from Giuliani’s ‘command bunker’).

skyeagle, I’ve already put you straight on it numerous times but you continue to ignore the information.

The FDNY noted the damage of WTC7 and knew the danger that eventually WTC7 might collapse, which is why they ordered people out of the building. Check it out.

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

Nothng there about explosives.

First of all, you have to supply evidence that explosives were used, and I would like to reiterate that there was absolutely no evidence of explosives whatsoever. None on video, audio, seismic data and no evidence of explosives found within the rubble of the WTC buildings. Where's the beef?!

In addition, Richard Gage and Steven Jones were both determined to have lied. People haven't forgotten about the doctored photo where Steven Jones tried to portray a flashlight reflection as molten steel. His credibility took a nose dive and the damaging remarks against him from BYU underlined the fact that Steven Jones had sought to deceive people.

Richard Gage was also caught lying on video and all of his claims have failed peer review as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

skyeagle, I’ve already put you straight on it numerous times but you continue to ignore the information.

You have failed to provide evidence of explosives and as the old saying goes;no evidence, no case. There is not a shred of evidence of a false flag operation and going to war cost a lot in money and lives, and as a result, the military is basically broke financially and the government will be spending additional billions of dollars in the coming years to support Vets who were seriously wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It has been over 11 years and yet,not one piece of evidence has surfaced that points to a government false flag operation. I have noted that much of what 911 conspiracy websites have said about those airliners, Transponders, FDRs and switched aircraft,is false and does not reflect reality of the way we do things in the real world of aviation. Much of what they have posted was absolutely false and I had the feeling that perhaps someone was deliberately planting false and misleading information in order to discredit the 911 Truther movement, and I have to say that if that is the case, they have done a very good job because much of what has been posted by the 911 conspiracy websites is false information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FDNY noted the damage of WTC7 and knew the danger that eventually WTC7 might collapse, which is why they ordered people out of the building. Check it out.

No, that is misleading and ignores details behind the FDNY decision to withdraw.

In every single instance information from anonymous advisors from Giuliani’s ‘command bunker’ informed the FDNY, against their independent judgement, that WTC7, and the towers before that, would collapse - I have further links and information which confirm this if anyone is interested. The warning (either of clairvoyance, or more likely foreknowledge of a demolition) was at odds with FDNY independent judgement and actions, though fire chiefs could not ignore it after witnessing the tower collapses and so quite sensibly ordered the fallback.

In other words, for instance, Deputy Chief Peter Hayden did not look at the bulge in the WTC7 south-west corner (which for the record, has been determined to have nothing to do with the collapse) and deduce the building would collapse. No, an anonymous advisor with him at the time stated the building would collapse, complete with, as Hayden recounted, an “on the money” time prediction of “five hours”.

skyeagle, I don’t expect you to understand subtlety of the difference between the FDNY or anonymous advisors from Giuliani’s office determining the collapse, but my initial statement stands: -

Of course what we have learnt since 9/11, is that the complete collapse of WTC7 earlier on the day was a foregone conclusion to many responders on site. How could this be with no precedent; when no such building fire situation had ever in history caused such a collapse; when NIST admit their own theory is extraordinary/unexpected? Why did the same concern not exist for the more extensively fire affected WTC6? The fact that numerous individuals there that day were aware of a WTC7 demolition option might have something to do with it, including the building owner who had been on the phone discussing that demolition option with his insurer.

Richard Gage was also caught lying on video and all of his claims have failed peer review as well.

As usual, skyeagle heads ever further on a tangent away from the topic of the thread and the comments in my initial post.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attempting to defend a lie is never pretty to watch. Humorous from time to time, but never pretty. :no:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In every single instance information from anonymous advisors from Giuliani’s ‘command bunker’ informed the FDNY, against their independent judgement, that WTC7, and the towers before that, would collapse - I have further links and information which confirm this if anyone is interested. The warning (either of clairvoyance, or more likely foreknowledge of a demolition) was at odds with FDNY independent judgement and actions, though fire chiefs could not ignore it after witnessing the tower collapses and so quite sensibly ordered the fallback.

You have links demonstrating that 'every single' firefighter who thought 7 would collapse came to that conclusion from the anonymous advisers? Clairvoyance and foreknowledge would have a tiny bit more credibility if everyone on the scene didn't have very good reason to suspect and fear that 7 would collapse, as if that suspicion was incredibly unusual in some way. You actually just supported that: the chiefs 'quite sensibly' ordered the fallback from 7 after witnessing the tower collapses. I just don't get the hay you try to make out of people taking entirely normal and rational actions, like people suspecting a burning, damaged, creaking building might collapse while literally standing in the rubble of two collapsed skyscrapers, or a building owner discussing the demolition of the same building, another entirely normal conversation given the circumstances. I'm hard pressed to think of any seemingly normal event or actions that 'couldn't be' something nefarious when we open it up to things we can imagine.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have links demonstrating that 'every single' firefighter who thought 7 would collapse came to that conclusion from the anonymous advisers?

Yes, evidence demonstrates that every single firefighter was influenced to believe WTC7 would collapse by the anonymous advisor(s). Why don’t we test it? You quote a firefighter who thought WTC7 would come down, and I’ll show the chain of communication that led to their expectation originated with the anonymous advisor(s).

You see, quotes like these, oft-used by official story adherents...

“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?”

~FDNY Lieutenant, James McGlynn

“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.”

~FDNY Deputy Chief, Peter Hayden

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

~FDNY Chief, Frank Fellini

... all give a false impression of the FDNY making independent judgement that collapse would ensue based upon their observation of the building. However, understanding the advice received from the anonymous advisor(s) and how that spread through the FDNY ranks puts the quotes in a whole different context.

For instance, McGlynn (above) whilst still trapped in the twin tower rubble and before ever viewing the WTC7 condition for himself was given the impression that the fire was the worst in the “history of the world, probably” and that the building was in danger of collapse (which as always, can be traced back to the anonymous advisor(s)). No wonder after his traumatic experience and passing by WTC7, his question that followed, “is it coming down next?” It was not his independent firefighting or engineering judgement, it was entirely what the information that he received had conditioned him to expect.

Clairvoyance and foreknowledge would have a tiny bit more credibility if everyone on the scene didn't have very good reason to suspect and fear that 7 would collapse, as if that suspicion was incredibly unusual in some way. You actually just supported that: the chiefs 'quite sensibly' ordered the fallback from 7 after witnessing the tower collapses. I just don't get the hay you try to make out of people taking entirely normal and rational actions, like people suspecting a burning, damaged, creaking building might collapse while literally standing in the rubble of two collapsed skyscrapers, or a building owner discussing the demolition of the same building, another entirely normal conversation given the circumstances. I'm hard pressed to think of any seemingly normal event or actions that 'couldn't be' something nefarious when we open it up to things we can imagine.

We have been over this before: -

http://www.unexplain...t

A central problem of your statement, is that you continuously misrepresent the confidence of collapse exhibited on scene as merely a “suspicion” of collapse.

As I indicated in our last discussion, if you refuse to accept the language used by responders on scene in reference to the forthcoming collapse, and want to imagine that words like, “imminent”, “adamant” and “definitely” mean something else, then there’s no point; it’s a lost cause trying to reason with someone who ignores or alters the meaning of words to suit. This is not to mention other evidence demonstrating a high confidence of collapse such as the “on the money” time prediction of when the whole building would go down.

If you could accept there was some high confidence expectation of collapse on scene, and then rephrase your incorrect statement above accordingly, then you might notice it sounds quite silly: -

C
lairvoyance and foreknowledge would have a tiny bit more credibility if everyone on the scene didn't have very good reason to be adamant that 7 would definitely collapse imminently, as if that high confidence was incredibly unusual in some way
.

Of course, if we understand these structures and the precedent of fire situations, there was no, ‘very good reason to be adamant that 7 would definitely collapse imminently’. None whatsoever. The firefighters local to the building and those who were prepared to enter WTC7 and fight the fires but were extracted and turned away did not think so. That was entirely impossible to deduce through the known damage and fire observations. However, it was entirely possible to deduce were a demolition option taking place.

Consider we each have an equivalent skyscraper. You set fire to yours (you get three shots with a wrecking-ball too!) and estimate your confidence that it will completely collapse. I'll set demolition charges in mine and tell you I have high confidence it is going down. Get it? No wonder you try to present the WTC7 collapse foreknowledge as just a "suspicion". Come on, be honest - base your view on the evidence, don't alter the evidence to your view. What do, “imminent”, “adamant” and “definitely” mean, LG? Hint: there is no relation to a "suspicion".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.