WTC7 Refutation Needed

[Q24]

The NIST did conclude that there were no explosives used to bring the building down, saying the sound of the detonation would've been extremely loud and heard over a half a mile away.

A bit like this perhaps?

[Farmer77]

A bit like this perhaps?

Cant trust that video it didn't come from the government or Popular Mechanics! ROFLMAO .

[TK0001]

A bit like this perhaps?

Yup, like that.

That same explosion, if it was made by a charge wired up to a support beam in WTC7, should've been picked up by microphones all over the place and reported by every reporter in the vicinity, yet it only shows up in this youtube video. Strange.

[Q24]

Cant trust that video it didn't come from the government or Popular Mechanics! ROFLMAO .

Your pre-emption of TK0001's post was beautiful

[TK0001]

Your pre-emption of TK0001's post was beautiful

Show me the same explosion on other WTC7 videos, please.

Also, prove that the explosion came from WTC7 at all.

[Farmer77]

Yup, like that.

That same explosion, if it was made by a charge wired up to a support beam in WTC7, should've been picked up by microphones all over the place and reported by every reporter in the vicinity, yet it only shows up in this youtube video. Strange.

The really ironic thing is that explosions WERE reported on 9/11, by news outlets and eyewitnesses alike. But "debunkers" have all kinds of reasons why all these folks saw and heard explosions , that weren't really explosions.

[Farmer77]

Show me the same explosion on other WTC7 videos, please.

Also, prove that the explosion came from WTC7 at all.

All right, you caught us I give up. The explosion didn't come from WTC 7. We conspiracy theorist nutjobs all rushed to new york on 9/11 to set off explosives to make it LOOK like there was an explosion at tower 7.

[TK0001]

The really ironic thing is that explosions WERE reported on 9/11, by news outlets and eyewitnesses alike. But "debunkers" have all kinds of reasons why all these folks saw and heard explosions , that weren't really explosions.

You guys need to huddle up and decide what you believe - that explosives were used or if [nano]thermate melted the beams.

Explosions were heard, I won't ever dispute that. But the fact that they weren't deafening or blew out windows close by or resembled explosions caused by CD leads me to believe they were caused by things other than explosives.

[TK0001]

All right, you caught us I give up. The explosion didn't come from WTC 7. We conspiracy theorist nutjobs all rushed to new york on 9/11 to set off explosives to make it LOOK like there was an explosion at tower 7.

That's as plausible as invisible covert teams of demolition experts willingly killing 3,000 innocent Americans without wiring.

[rassy]

All right, you caught us I give up. The explosion didn't come from WTC 7. We conspiracy theorist nutjobs all rushed to new york on 9/11 to set off explosives to make it LOOK like there was an explosion at tower 7.

In that video, I didn't SEE an explosion anywhere. Just heard a big boom. How does that prove it came from building 7? Plus, I can kick my old garage door and it would sound like that, too. Things were falling off the buildings and there were vehicles around them, too. I'm just saying that something that sounds like an explosion might not be an actual explosion. Especially when said explosion and tower are not shown on the same video with the sound.

[Q24]

Show me the same explosion on other WTC7 videos, please.

That’s a very difficult request without most videos being time stamped. I don’t like to disappoint though and I may have found something.

The original explosion I linked is

and the location marked by the red circle below. I have been looking around and apparently the video was sourced from the Camera Planet website with the timing around 10:15am - 10:50am.

Another video of an explosion is

with the location marked by the yellow circle below. The cameraman was a Mr. Steve Spak and the footage taken “minutes after the collapse of the North Tower”. How many minutes I cannot confirm.

Could these possibly be the same explosion? Both are within the vicinity of WTC7 and with approximate matching timings so it’s possible.

Also, prove that the explosion came from WTC7 at all.

Again difficult, though both videos give clues.

After the explosion in the first video we hear the fireman say, “we gotta get back, seven’s…” I can’t make out whether he says “explode”, “collapse”, “fall down” or something else but the reference to WTC7 is there.

In the second video, when the explosion occurs, the cameraman continues filming down Fulton Street (towards WTC7). If the explosion had come from the already collapsed WTC2, we would maybe expect the cameraman to spin around and look down Broadway as the sound would equally have come from that direction.

Anyhow none of the above really matters. You see this works both ways – it cannot be indisputably proven that the explosion came from WTC7 or not. NIST claimed that no loud explosion existed that could possibly have come from WTC7 when clearly this is not true.

There are of course a number of other separate references to WTC7 explosions from firemen and witnesses.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Q24

[merril]

Link To WTC 7

8:20-

There's no water on it, anywhere.

9:47-

Just sits there...(edit)...from fire, you know?

Yeah. That's why he pulled everybody out of here.

That building's 50 stories. Definitely could reach over here.

We should move us...

Need to get everybody out of there.That's for sure.

Yeah.

Even after everything we did for the towers, they collapsed- that's it!

10:51

Look at the hole in that building!

Might come down.

Let's get everybody out of here.

The Third Tower: The Fires

Fireman-

"I saw the fire. I saw the damage. That was good enough for me.

I never heard any charges, I never heard any sequence of explosions, timed explosions.

And I never heard anyone talk about that untill a long time later."

[merril]

As far as "running out of water," was the Hudson River dry that day then? Don't they have fireboats and hose in NYC (I seem to recall seeing photos of some by the Brooklyn and George Washington Bridges before)? I also see two lines spraying after WTC7 has "collapsed" in this aerial photo (and note the condition of the neighboring buildings):

http://tree3.com/1hr/rubble.jpg

It is one thing to be abreast and critical of political activities, and another to impune the good efforts of the FDNY. The criticism would go straight to Chief Nigro, who assumed control after another Chief died near the towers. I don't think that would hold up under scrutiny, to blame the fire department or it's leadership.

As for fire boats, I read there were three in New York. One was commisioned in 1931, retired in the early 1990's, and intially slated to be scrapped. It's main pumps did not work, but some deck pipes could pump some water. It did go to assist after water mains were impacted by the towers.

There were also two other such boats. Where and when their efforts were effective, I don't know. But, WTC 7 had an interruption to its water supply that was documented and reported. Those are random events that occured after the planes crashed into the buildings.

FDNY Distress Call!

Retired Fireboat Harvey Helps With World Trade Center Disaster

Born-Again Hero. A 70-year-old veteran comes out of retirement.

[dMx9]

It is one thing to be abreast and critical of political activities, and another to impune the good efforts of the FDNY. The criticism would go straight to Chief Nigro, who assumed control after another Chief died near the towers. I don't think that would hold up under scrutiny, to blame the fire department or it's leadership.

As for fire boats, I read there were three in New York. One was commisioned in 1931, retired in the early 1990's, and intially slated to be scrapped. It's main pumps did not work, but some deck pipes could pump some water. It did go to assist after water mains were impacted by the towers.

There were also two other such boats. Where and when their efforts were effective, I don't know. But, WTC 7 had an interruption to its water supply that was documented and reported. Those are random events that occured after the planes crashed into the buildings.

FDNY Distress Call!

Actually, I would (and do) place the blame on the Rudy Giuliani and Bloomberg Mayoral Administrations- weren't they the ones deciding where the budgets went (or didn't)? After the 1993 WTC bombing and Rudy's/Jerome Hauer's multi-million? reinforcements to the OEM on the 23rd floor of WTC7, we are supposed to believe that NYC had no idea that the WTC Plaza was a target? There were no contingency plans for emergency management, firefighting, better radio systems, etc.?

Also from your link (that you must not have read):

"... Though the city administration was repeatedly warned that the unprecedented rate of retirements was jeopardizing the safety of the public, not to mention the safety of members of the FDNY, the Bloomberg administration has steadfastly refused to acknowledge and address the problem.

New York City firefighters are still equipped with hand-held radios that don’t work in skyscrapers or subways, and other critical instances such as large schools and hospitals. The problem was first identified in 1993, when terrorists tried to bomb one of the Twin Towers off its foundation. Eight years later, sent into the WTC with those same failed radios, scores of firefighters died when they did not hear repeated orders to evacuate the buildings. To this date, everything the Fire Department has done to remedy the radio situation has been bungled, in a long-running civic scandal that no one wants to fully investigate. No one. Not anyone in law enforcement. Not anyone in the press. Not anyone at FDNY headquarters or City Hall or Albany or Washington. Shame on all of them. Someone is responsible for the deaths of all those firefighters, and the continuing jeopardy to every firefighter today, and no one wants to know who, what, when, where, why or how.

...Engine companies will be closed because they can no longer be fully manned. There is no doubt in the minds of New York City’s firefighters that this was the City Hall plan from January 1. The Bloomberg administration wants a younger, smaller, cheaper Fire Department.

There is so much more. Once the FDNY had 10 fireboats, the pride of New York Harbor. Then in 1959 there were 8, and in 1970 there were 6, and in 1976 there were 4. In 1991 another boat was retired and there were only three large boats and one small one when the terrorist attack occurred on 9/11. One fireboat was tied to the pier because it didn’t have a crew. The small boat was used as a tender. The other two were dispatched to the World Trade Center, which soon had no water because the infrastructure there was crushed and buried. The two fireboats that made it to the scene struggled with engine failures and broken pumps, unable to deliver sufficient amounts of Hudson River water onto the site. With underground fires raging unchecked, hundreds of firefighters were unable to commence rescue and recovery efforts until a decommissioned fireboat that had become a tourist attraction along the Hudson was rushed back into service to provide additional water. The city’s consultant report stated the case ever so gently, as follows, "The pumping capabilities of the boats on September 11 and on succeeding days were below design capacity due to mechanical problems. A privately owned boat provided much additional pumping capacity." Beautiful. When I broke into the news business here there were 10 FDNY fireboats, all of them fully manned and in good working condition.

And much has been made of the fact that a police helicopter radioed a warning at 10:07 a.m. on 9/11, shortly after the collapse of the south tower, a warning that the north tower was in imminent danger of collapse. The New York Times, in one of a series of in-depth stories based on Oral History interviews of rescue workers that the newspaper was able to obtain, led its account with the warning from the NYPD helicopter shortly after the south tower fell and 21 minutes before the second building came down. The Times estimated there were 121 firefighters still in the north tower, none of whom heard the police radio warning and all of whom died.

The police helicopter warning has become the focus of all the What Went Wrong stories since. But in the same July 7 story, down in the middle of its massive account, The Times reported that a high-ranking chief of the FDNY radioed an evacuation order to all firefighters in the north tower at 9:32 a.m., after he felt the building move and saw the structure buckling and the windows breaking all around him in the lobby. That was 27 minutes before the south tower fell, 35 minutes before the police helicopter warning that the north tower was certain to go, and a full 56 minutes before the north tower collapsed.

But hundreds of firefighters in the floors above never heard the Staff Chief’s radio command on their own radios, nor did they hear any of the frantic calls to evacuate that followed. And with 27 minutes still left before the first collapse, no one in the south tower heard his evacuation order either. The FDNY radios, the same ones that failed at the WTC in 1993, failed again at the same place eight years later. They couldn’t be heard on the floors above, they couldn’t be heard on the floors below, and they couldn’t be heard from one WTC lobby to the other. The Times has unintentionally done history a disservice with its emphasis on a 10:07 a.m. radio warning from a police helicopter. The emphasis should have been on a 9:32 a.m. order by Staff Chief Joseph Callan to his firefighters to "come down to the lobby, everyone down to the lobby." No one knows how many more times the Fire Department lobby command center repeated those evacuation orders on their worthless, useless radios that morning. We only know that too many firefighters on the floors above never heard the commands. ....."

I've been told by veterans of both US Navy and US Coast Guard ships that many of their ships have water cannon and high-volume pumps. Why weren't any of these called into service after WTC1 was struck (and W was reading about goats)?

http://www.d7publicaffairs.com/external/index.cfm?cid=802

[dMx9]

I'm curious as to why the NIST would feel the need to doctor a photo to show more damage than was actually at WTC7, then conclude in their report that fire, not the damage, was the primary cause for the collapse.

That's a very good question TK. Why don't you ask them:

http://wtc.nist.gov/contacts/

[dMx9]

In that video, I didn't SEE an explosion anywhere. Just heard a big boom. How does that prove it came from building 7? Plus, I can kick my old garage door and it would sound like that, too. Things were falling off the buildings and there were vehicles around them, too. I'm just saying that something that sounds like an explosion might not be an actual explosion.

So which other buildings completely "collapsed" on Lower Manhattan after noon EDT that day again? Maybe I forgot...

Also, so where was that photo of Capt. Boyle's "20 story hole" in WTC7 that everyone keeps chatting about again? I still haven't seen that photo.

P.S. There was more than one photo that contradicted the NYPD/NIST photo in my links- there were several stills, and at least one newsfeed video. To answer your question, yes I fully realize that the photos could have been taken at different times- are you able to tell us what those specific times are? That would be helpful.

[TK0001]

That's a very good question TK. Why don't you ask them:

http://wtc.nist.gov/contacts/

That was a rhetorical question. I don't believe they doctored the photo because there was no reason to, since they concluded the fires brought the building down.

All this damage talk is moot. There was a lot, but that's not what brought down the building.

[TK0001]

The Third Tower: The Fires

Merril, you've stumbled upon something here. At 4:42 of this video, Frank Papalia says:

"We heard, it sounded like a jet engine, and if you..we looked over the buildings, you could see the top of building seven. And it just started to shake, and then it just disappeared down."

Since we have ruled out the fact that analogies were not used that day (things that sounded like explosions were explosions, collapsing buildings that looked like controlled demolitions were controlled demolitions), I would like to know why "they" found it necessary to plant a jet engine in WTC7 and fire it up just before the collapse.

I'll open that up to everyone here. Why was a jet engine used at WTC7? What was the purpose?

[TK0001]

Merril, you've stumbled upon something here. At 4:42 of this video, Frank Papalia says:

"We heard, it sounded like a jet engine, and if you..we looked over the buildings, you could see the top of building seven. And it just started to shake, and then it just disappeared down."

Since we have ruled out the fact that analogies were not used that day (things that sounded like explosions were explosions, collapsing buildings that looked like controlled demolitions were controlled demolitions), I would like to know why "they" found it necessary to plant a jet engine in WTC7 and fire it up just before the collapse.

I'll open that up to everyone here. Why was a jet engine used at WTC7? What was the purpose?

Edit: should read "Since we have determined the fact that analogies were not used that day"

[dMx9]

Merril, you've stumbled upon something here. At 4:42 of this video, Frank Papalia says:

"We heard, it sounded like a jet engine, and if you..we looked over the buildings, you could see the top of building seven. And it just started to shake, and then it just disappeared down."

Since we have ruled out the fact that analogies were not used that day (things that sounded like explosions were explosions, collapsing buildings that looked like controlled demolitions were controlled demolitions), I would like to know why "they" found it necessary to plant a jet engine in WTC7 and fire it up just before the collapse.

I'll open that up to everyone here. Why was a jet engine used at WTC7? What was the purpose?

Edit: should read "Since we have determined the fact that analogies were not used that day"

I think you probably mean "since we have opined that similes were not used that day"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/simile

"n.

A figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared, often in a phrase introduced by like or as, as in "How like the winter hath my absence been" or "So are you to my thoughts as food to life" (Shakespeare)."

So do you have any sources for your "Why was a jet engine used at WTC7?" theory, other than that singular quote from that video clip TK0001? I find your theory a little far-fetched, and was hoping for a little more information there.

Edit: So here it is 30+ posts later, and no one has produced a photo of Boyle's "20 story hole" then? Perhaps that was an exaggeration or mistake then.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2863357

It is interesting because in that "like a jet engine" clip, the one gentleman mentions that the damage was at the top floors of WTC7 (as I pointed out about the Aman Zafar photo, and the links I provided at #64 show from the video clip and other stills). That dubious NIST/NYPD photo claims that the damage started at the 18th floor on the SW corner though. Steve Spak says the damage was in the lower SW corner, so you appear to have a few discrepancies here in this "WTC7 hole" business.

Edited April 30, 2009 by dMx9

[TK0001]

So do you have any sources for your "Why was a jet engine used at WTC7?" theory, other than that singular quote from that video clip TK0001? I find your theory a little far-fetched, and was hoping for a little more information there.

Easy.

Evidence of explosives at ground zero = people heard explosions. Therefore explosions = explosives.

Evidence of controlled demolition of the buildings = reporters saying they looked like controlled demolitions. Therefore they were brought down by controlled demolition.

I could go on youtube to find where this logic is used over and over and completely accepted among the CT crowd.

So I've turned the tables. They've been trying to convince us for years that analogies....excuse me, similes, were not used that day. Okay, so then we are to believe because Frank Papalia says it sounded like a jet engine, a jet engine must have been in the building.

I'm just trying to figure out why that would be necessary.

[TK0001]

It is interesting because in that "like a jet engine" clip, the one gentleman mentions that the damage was at the top floors of WTC7 (as I pointed out about the Aman Zafar photo, and the links I provided at #64 show from the video clip and other stills). That dubious NIST/NYPD photo claims that the damage started at the 18th floor on the SW corner though. Steve Spak says the damage was in the lower SW corner, so you appear to have a few discrepancies here in this "WTC7 hole" business.

All this damage talk is moot. There was a lot, but that's not what brought down the building.

Regardless of where you want to believe the damage existed, or how much there was, the NIST determined the building was brought down by fire.

[dMx9]

Easy.

Evidence of explosives at ground zero = people heard explosions. Therefore explosions = explosives.

Evidence of controlled demolition of the buildings = reporters saying they looked like controlled demolitions. Therefore they were brought down by controlled demolition.

I could go on youtube to find where this logic is used over and over and completely accepted among the CT crowd.

So I've turned the tables. They've been trying to convince us for years that analogies....excuse me, similes, were not used that day. Okay, so then we are to believe because Frank Papalia says it sounded like a jet engine, a jet engine must have been in the building.

I'm just trying to figure out why that would be necessary.

Well, on your "jet engine in WTC7" conspiracy theory, I do remember hearing about generators and fuel. You might want to check out this Rolls Royce RB-211 genset- that seems like a likely candidate for your theory:

http://www.power-technology.com/contractor...lls-royce2.html

"Rolls-Royce - Aeroderivative Gas Turbines

Industrial RB211 power gensets, from 27.5MW to 32.1MW, are available in a wide variety of configurations to meet individual project requirements, in both gas and dual-fuel versions."

------

Following your new "logic," so you are now one of those "missile hit the Pentagon" believers, TK001? ""It sounded like a missile,"- Michael DiPaula

There were no flaps down and it looked like a deadly missile on the final phase of its mission into the building." Mitch Mitchell, Ret. Army Col.

"The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane." Lon Rains

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

Good luck with your missile hit the Pentagon and "jet engine inside WTC7" "simile theories" though TK0001- I'm not convinced of either. There are far too many inconsistencies nearly anywhere one looks objectively, but that RB-211 industrial generator info should help you out a little with your theories.

[dMx9]

Regardless of where you want to believe the damage existed, or how much there was, the NIST determined the building was brought down by fire.

I don't "want to believe" anything- one way or the other. I've been waiting for photographic evidence of this "20 story hole" that you attributed to Capt. Boyle for 30+ posts now on this thread. That NIST/NYPD photo is of questionable authenticity and is contradicted by several other sources, so I'd like to see some more photos and clear video of WTC7 (not obscured by smoke) if possible. You have failed to provide any photographic evidence of that "20 story hole" and have also failed to admit as much. I'm noticing a pattern here.

[TK0001]

Good luck with your missile hit the Pentagon and "jet engine inside WTC7" "simile theories" though TK0001- I'm not convinced of either. There are far too many inconsistencies nearly anywhere one looks objectively, but that RB-211 industrial generator info should help you out a little with your theories.

You're clearly not dense, so I'm having a hard time understanding how you're not seeing what I'm doing. Do I really need to explain it all over again?