See other 9/11 Articles
Title: "Seven is exploding"
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
Published: Apr 16, 2007
Author: Canale 5
Post Date: 2007-05-05 10:55:52 by honway
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1142
Comments: 92
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: honway (#0)
The explosions were clearly audible toward the end of the video...
Those damn Italian KOOKS!! ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Counterpunch: Dark Fire - The Fall of WTC 7 There were five emergency power systems in WTC 7. Three of them (American Express, OEM, U.S. Secret Service) drew fuel from the other two and larger systems (Salomon Smith Barney, Silverstein Properties). (1c), (8) The emergency power for the building (Silverstein Properties) was provided by two 900 kW generators on the southwest corner of Floor 5. They drew fuel from a 275 gallon tank nearby, and this was replenished by pumps drawing from two 12,000 gallon tanks at ground level under the loading dock, at the southwest corner of the building. The SSB emergency power system used nine 1,725 kW generators on Floor 5: three in the southwest corner, two near the west end of the north face, four at the east end of the north face. Louvers for air intake and exhaust were situated on the building faces near the generators. Because there was already a 275 gallon "day tank" on this floor, the SSB system pumped on demand from their own pair of 6,000 gallon storage tanks, also situated under the loading dock, under the southwestern part of the building. The fuel supplier was contracted to keep the tanks full, and they were full that day. Fuel pipes for all systems except SSB ran up the western side of the core of the building, along elevator shafts. The SSB pipes ran up a shaft through mechanical spaces near the southwest corner of the building. Kindling After 1 p.m. on September 11, 2001, WTC 7 was an evacuated, stricken building. The southwest corner and central third of the south face had been ripped open by the cascading debris from the collapse of WTC 1. Fires burned in sections of Floors 6 through 30 at different times, and they migrated along their floors independently, seeking new sources of fuel. From the street the fires on Floors 11 and 12 appeared most intense. Many fires in the area went unchecked because utility power for electrical pumps, and water pressure for fire engines had either diminished or been lost. This is what happened. A Pumped Oil Spill The debris fall ripping into the southwest corner ruptured the oil pipes of the SSB pressurized fuel distribution system. Operating as intended -- the lack of utility power triggering the "need", and the lack of pressure due to a severed pipe signaling the "demand", the SSB system pumped oil up from its 12,000 gallon basement reservoir, maximally with a pressure of 50 psi (pounds per square inch) and flow rate of 75 gpm (gallons per minute), onto Floor 5. Pumping would have started at 9:59 a.m., when Con Ed cut utility power to WTC 7; and the spilling would have started a half hour later when the pressurized pipe was cut. The SSB pumps could have drained the two 6,000 gallon tanks in 2 hours and 40 minutes. Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation found that "there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." (10) Additionally, "Both tanks were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after the collapse. Some fuel contamination was found in the gravel below the tanks and the sand below the slab on which the tanks were mounted, but no contamination was found in the organic marine silt/clay layer underneath." (7) By contrast, 20,000 gallons of oil was recovered from the two 12,000 gallon tanks of Silverstein Properties. (10) Pulled up by the emergency pumps, the SSB diesel fuel went , from the 6,000 gallon storage tanks, under the loading dock, under the southwestern part of the building, to floor 5. It may all have been pumped out by 1 p.m., or it may have been pumped out at a rate as low as 29 gpm for 7 hours. Since this fuel was absent from the wreckage, it was burned. You can see it as the huge plume of black smoke rising from the World Trade Center, in panoramic photographs of that day. Diesel fuel can supply 2.13 MW of power per gpm given an air supply of 1333 cfm (cubic feet per minute). (11) Thus, a diesel fuel gusher of 75 gpm burning with excess air would produce 160 MW of heat; a total energy of 1536 GJ for the 12,000 gallons. This energy is equivalent to that released by an explosion of 367 tons of TNT. If the pumping rate is lower, or the air supply is throttled, then the burning would occur at a lower rate. Since the louver system along Floor 5 was designed to supply each of the nine SSB engines with 80,000 cfm, it seems likely that a fuel oil fire there would find sufficient air for combustion. For a discussion of heat at 9/11, and energy units, CounterPunchers will soon be able to have my study, "the Thermodynamics of 9/11", to be published shortly on the CounterPunch website as part of our final package on the actual physics and engineering realities of the collapse of the WTC buildings.
"...how do we know they haven't been lying about all the rest, as well?" Indeed.
Official fairy talers are fond of posting quotes like that. It sure makes that deisel fuel seem like a powerful exposive, doesn't it? What always gets left out is flame speed. Flame speed for TNT is somewhere around 20,000 feet per second. In other words it releases it's energy quickly and with a much higher velocity. I bet a good rain shower unleashes as much energy as a few hundred tons of TNT too, but normally rain does not take down buildings.
That would work out as a fine explanation, but the SW corner was not damaged very much. The gouge out of the corner that NIST portrays in their report is not a gouge at all, but smoke obscuring the corner. The SW corner actually only suffered superficial damage.
Flame speed or no flame speed, a concrete and steel bridge in Oakland was melted by 8,000 gallons of gasoline, and then collapsed, by 8,600 gallons of burning gasoline, which has less BTU's per pound than diesel fuel. So the statement that "No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire" is unequivocally untrue.
You wouldn't need a big gouge. All you'd need is a piece of debris puncturing a pressurized fuel line, which was designed to provide emergency power without external electricity. So....What did happen to the 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel, which was not found at the site. And where did all the black smoke come from during the hours preceding the collapse if not from the 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel?
Congratulations on getting your "Enemies" site up so quickly. I'm impressed.
LMAO! Oh no, not a steel bridge falling! 8000 gallons of gasoline working on ONE beam, which did not melt, it sagged. If you're going to compare the bridge to WTC 7 then I have no use for you any more. Run along.
It *sagged?* That was quite some *sag*, I must say.
Thanks, but it was not very difficult. It's made from Joomla, an off the shelf, free CMS, with a couple of free plug in components.
"Witnesses reported flames rising up to 200 feet into the air. Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound Interstate 580 above to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said. Bottom line, a concrete and steel structure collapsed solely due to fire.
Look, you're either too stupid or too disingenuous to warrant further response from me, if you believe there is some comparison between 7 and this bridge. 7 was a complete and total collapse. If this bridge were a comparable case, the entire section would have had to have fallen and taken out the roadway below. Did it? No. So Bye! You get the honor of being my very first bozo.
The video starts out with the statement that "No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire." Now you're coming out with "You can't compare a steel bridge with a steel building." You're not good enough to be my #1, you'll be my third.
From: http://sky-fire.tv/index.cgi/thunderstorms.html When you see comparisons between the energy of the deisel or jet fuel and the energy of TNT, ask youself why thunderstorms don't take out entire cities every day.
And of course they always completely ignore the fact the WTC each has a plane fly into them.
"Be convinced that to be happy means to be free and that to be free means to be brave. Therefore do not take lightly the perils of war." -- Thucydides
The problem with your theory is the diesel fuel tanks were underground below the loading dock and on the ground floor. No fires were reported in these locations. No fires were reported on floor 5 --------------------------------------- http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf Fires were reported on floors 6,7,8,10,11, and 19.
Thanks for the additional information. Since there were no fires in WTC 7 on floor five or below, we can rule out the farfetched claim that diesel fuel pumps were supplying fuel to fires from a tank located below the loading dock.
The fires shown here are on the 11th floor of WTC 7. Suggesting on a public forum that fuel lines that stopped at the 5th floor were feeding this fire and the fires above it makes one an "accessory after the fact" in my view.
The tanks were below. However the generators they supplied were on the 5th floor. Therefore pressurized fuel lines were necessary. Furthermore the 5th floor had "louvers" to insure an adequate supply of air to the generators. Since these systems are designed to start automatically when power fails, the pumps started the minute the building's elecricity went off. The pressurized fuel fed the fires along the path(s) of the fuel lines wherever they were ruptured.
You are missing an essential point. The fuel lines your post identified stopped at floor five. There were no fires on floor five or below. The fires were all above where the fuel lines stopped. Therefore, the fuel lines that stopped on floor five did not supply the fires.
If you actually believe this nonsense you are posting, then you should have no problem finding a photo of a fire at WTC 7 on or below floor five. The problem is there are no such photos because there were no fires on floor 5 or below.
What's so special about floors 1-5 that there were fires elsewhere but not on those floors? And if I do show there were fires on those floors are you going to admit you've been rebutted, or are you going to come up with some other explanation that they weren't important?
LOL I tried, but I can't bring myself to have anyone on bozo.
If the fuel lines stopped at the 5th floor, how did they feed fires on the 6th floor and above?
"Heat, from any source and at any temperature, turns steel into wet noodles." - Destro's Theorem
If you provide a photograph of a fire at WTC 7 on any of the floors 1 thru 5 I will acknowledge that if the diesel fuel pumps were running they could have fueled fires on floors 1 thru 5. If you find the FEMA Performance Study was accurate and you cannot find a photo of a fire on floors 1 thru 5, will you acknowledge a fuel line that stopped at floor five,where the generator was located, could not fuel a fire on the floors above floor 5?
In your post, the fuel supply system you described stopped at the generator. The generator was on floor 5. The fuel lines described in your reply did not extend above floor five.
This video is complete deceptive ... so it epitomizes the *truth* movement. First, it claims "no steel structure had ever collapsed before due to fire". That is complete false. Why do honway and critter think we have fire codes that require special protection of steel structural members in steel buildings in the first place? Then it shows videoclips of the WTC 7 collapse that are deceptive. They are deceptive because the videos begin more than 7 seconds after the collapse actually began. You see, the east penthouse mechanical room, on the same side of the building as the diesel tank, suddenly sank into the structure more than 7 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed. Here it is: --------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
That is correct. And also, if there were no fires below Floor 6 then this theory is not viable. So it should be fairly easy to prove or disprove this hypothesis. If it can be demonstrated there were no fires below Floor 6, I will not put forth any further argument. However, I'm fairly certain that there were fires everywhere both above and below Floor 5. So I will do some checking and get back to you.
Perhaps you are focusing too much on the 5th floor and below as the initiation point for the collapse. There are papers (such as http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf ) that look into the failure and conclude that the failure could have begun well above that (particularly on the 12th floor) and simply spread from there. Remember, Chief Hayden is quoted saying "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." Here is a first responder with WTC7 in the background during an interview. --------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
You are correct, Critter, and this is also the explanation for the difference between what AGA, in ignorance (I assume), is claiming here, and what happened to the bridge in Oakland. Gasoline burns very, very fast; it is nearly explosive in its burning, and because of the rate at which it burns, it creates a lot more quick heat. Diesel fuel has a lot more power as a fuel because it does burn slower, and thus creates a more sustained ''push'' inside of an engine, whereas gasoline burns much faster, akin to an explosion inside of each cylinder on each stroke. Trying to compare what diesel fuel does to what gasoline does is really, really ignorant.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Another self-taught scientist weighs in. The Oakland overpass did not collapse because of "flame speed." The overpass collapsed because it got heated so much that the bolts supporting the structure melted, the steel beam(s) buckled, and the structure collapsed. And heat is measured in *BTU's*, which means that a gallon of diesel fuel or kerosene produces more heat than a gallon of gasoline.
No shit, O BRILLANT ONE? Of course, because of flame speed, that heat is released over a much, much longer period of time, leading to an overall much, much lower tempature..... but what do I know....... Oh, that´s right! I do know! I have worked a lot of construction, generally, as the BOSS, if you understand the word. Many, many times, we used diesel fuel in five gal. cans, with the tops cut out, to mark opem holes or piles of dirt esp. during work shiffs at night. Probably, you have seen simialar things, if you simply think about it. And it is really amazing.... the TIN cans NEVER ONCE melted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And, we would use cut off 55 gal. drums, with diesel fuel and several pieces of rebar (which is made of SOFT steel) PLACED OVER THEM to melt tar (HELD IN A 5 GAL. BUCKET WHICH ALSO NEVER MELTED!) to repair or caulk sewer pipes with-------NEVER ONCE HAD A 55 GAL. DRUM MELT!!! AND, USED THEM FOR HOURS AND HOURS! AND DAYS AND DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!! Now, I understand how ignorance is an excuse for many things, but what you are talking about goes way, way beyond ignorance and borders on stupidity, but hey, what do I know.....
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Like I said, another self-taught scientist. Now you want to claim that kerosene and diesel fuel take "much, much longer" to burn than gasoline. Are you vaguely aware that jet aircraft go Mach 2 using fuels similar to kerosene even though by your "reasoning" their engines would take "much, much, longer" to burn their fuel, and hence generate less thrust and speed, than if they used av gas (which nobody uses for high performance jets)? And the afterburners of those jet aircraft using fuels similar to kerosene reach temperatures of 3,000 degrees which again by your "reasoning" would be "an overall much, much" lower temperature than what you claim av gas would produce? That explains a lot I worked in construction a summer after I got out of college until I went on to better things. Now I do my own because I've seen first hand the work put out by people who do it for a living. I'm sure that your "much much higher temperature" gasoline never has melted a 55 gallon drum either. But nevertheless, a gasoline fire did "melt" a fairly large section of a concrete and steel bridge. And I have no doubt that a kerosene or diesel fuel fire under similar conditions would do the same thing Your point being? Last but not least, do some research on how hot oil well fires get- which burn totally undistilled crude which by your "resoning" should burn even at lower temperatures than kerosene or diesel - before you make any more uneducated utterances about hydrocarbon combustion.
So it should be fairly easy to prove or disprove this hypothesis. If it can be demonstrated there were no fires below Floor 6, I will not put forth any further argument. While it is not proof of the absence of fires not seen, NIST reported as follows: NIST PRELIMINARY REPORT L.2.2 Observed Fire Locations Photographs and videos were used to determine fire locations and movement within WTC 7. Most of the available information is for the north and east faces of WTC 7. Information about fires in other areas of the building was obtained from interviews, and is summarized as follows: From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: PAGE L-22 ============================ http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf NIST RESPONSE TO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER PART IIC - WTC-7 COLLAPSE April 5, 2005 ------------- Observed Fire Locations (11:30-2:30 pm) General Looking from southwest corner to the south face Looking from southeast corner to the south face [1] fires reported on floor 14, but photographs showed east face fires on floor Page 21 ===================== Observed Fires East Face Fires on Floors 11-12 near 2 PM Fires in WTC 7 -- which began soon after WTC 1 collapsed -- were observed on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle about half an hour before collapse; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. Fires were also seen on Floors 12, 13, 22, 29, and 30 at various times during the day. Page 22 =====================
http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/arch ive/nist_wtc7.html
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11 I believe the south face gash is where Manuel Garcia, who came up with this theory of the collapse, believes the smoke from the burning diesel fuel was exiting the building.
The theroy being considered is the claim the diesel fuel in storage tanks under the loading dock was pumped up through fuel lines and fed the fires. The fuel lines in question stopped at the generator on floor five.Hence, these fuel lines did not fuel fires above floor 5.
# No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas Thanks for the information in your reply.
No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby The theory purports that diesel fuel was being pumped out of a compromised fuel line from about the time that WTC-1 fell. The lack of any observed smell of diesel fuel argues against there being thousands of gallons of diesel sloshing around on the floor to ignite hours later. Having warned the Port Authority in 1998 and 1999 about the diesel tank, the FDNY was clearly aware of its existence and danger. December 20, 2001 Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design changes to address the concerns -- moving a fuel pipe that would have run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example -- it left the tank in place. But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called "disaster." Putting a tank underground typically protects it from falling debris, and impedes leaks or tank fires from spreading throughout the building. Engineering experts have spent three months trying to determine why 7 World Trade Center, part of the downtown complex that included the 110-story towers, collapsed about seven hours after being damaged and set on fire by debris from the damaged landmark buildings. Some of the experts, who said that no major skyscraper had ever collapsed simply because of fire damage, have recently been examining whether the diesel tanks -- there were others beneath ground level -- played an important role in the building's stunning demise. The Port Authority, which owns the land on which the building stood and issued the building permit for the tank and its fireproof enclosure, said yesterday that it believed the structure had in fact met the terms of the city's fire code. Though the tank was on a tall fireproof pedestal, it was still effectively on the lowest floor of the building, as the code requires, said Frank Lombardi, the Port Authority's chief engineer. The authority also worked with Fire Department officials to eliminate the department's original objections, Mr. Lombardi said. "We made sure that it was in agreement with the code," Mr. Lombardi said, adding that the tank was placed in an eight-inch-thick masonry enclosure. A spokesman for the Fire Department said yesterday that he could not authoritatively say whether all the concerns of its officials had been addressed by the Port Authority. But when reached yesterday, the department official who wrote several of the warning memorandums said he regarded the Port Authority's interpretation of the code to be "a stretch." The official, Battalion Chief William P. Blaich, said he still considered the tank's placement to have been unsafe. The Port Authority has long held that, as a matter of law, it does not have to abide by city fire codes. But after the 1993 bombing of the towers, the Port Authority signed a memorandum of understanding with the city pledging to not only meet the city's fire codes, but also to often take additional precautions. A spokesman for the city's office of emergency management, Francis E. McCarton, said the city accepted the Port Authority's determination that the tank and its placement were properly safe. He said it was essential that the mayor's command center have a backup energy source and placing it on ground floor was unacceptable because the area was deemed to be susceptible to floods. "We put it in the area where we needed to put it," Mr. McCarton said. Any suggestion that the tank's position was a factor in the collapse of the building was ''pure speculation,'' he said. He added that the tank had fire extinguishers and was surrounded by the thick, fire-resistant containment system, and that the fiery collapse of the towers could never have been anticipated in the city's planning. No one is believed to have died in the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. But its collapse did further complicate the rescue and recovery efforts under way at the scene. The engineering and fire experts who have been examining the collapse of 7 World Trade Center have not settled on the final cause of the disaster. But they have seen evidence of very high temperatures typical of fuel fires in the debris from the building and have raised questions about whether the diesel accounted for those conditions. At least two firefighters who were at the scene, Deputy Chief James Jackson and Battalion Chief Blaich, said that the southwest corner of the building near the fuel tank was severely damaged, possibly by falling debris, and that the tank might have been breached. Mr. Jackson said that about an hour before the building's collapse, heavy black smoke, consistent with a fuel fire of some sort, was coming from that part of the building. The Port Authority said it was unlikely the heavy masonry surrounding the tank could have been breached, and its officials have raised the possibility that the two diesel tanks buried just below the ground floor of the building might have contributed to the fire. They have also asserted that structural damage from falling debris is a more likely culprit in the collapse. Several fire experts said that, whatever the questions surrounding the city's code, installing giant fuel tanks above the occupied spaces of a building posed serious risks.
I do not have to be a scientist to understand basic facts, O BRILLANT ONE. Now you want to claim that kerosene and diesel fuel take "much, much longer" to burn than gasoline. All things are in relationships; for instance, if gas burns in one second, and kerosene in two seconds, tnen kerosene burns half as fast, thus shows a slower flame speed and a slower release of heat. This is why kerosene/diesel fuel is also much safer to haul; oh, by the way, had about 80 over the road trucks including tankers. And that brings up the point, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A DIESEL/KEROSENE LOADED TANKER EXPLODING? Inquiring minds want to know, because I never have....... Are you vaguely aware that jet aircraft go Mach 2 using fuels similar to kerosene ¿No shit? REALLY!? Of course, here you are comparing apples to organges, as you seem to really, really, really, really, really like to do, as if all of us are stupid, right? Have you ever looked at a break down of a jet engine, and the methodology used to reach those tempatures and thrust? Because if you have not, I have, and IF they used AV gas, they would have more slightly more thrust, but much, much higher tempatures, such that the life of the engines would be severly curtailed. IF IF IF they could build an engine, at any price, that could stand the tempatures. Simply put, AV gas DOES NOT fit the technology of jet engines; never has and never will. I'm sure that your "much much higher temperature" gasoline never has melted a 55 gallon drum either. Damned if I know, because no one I know has ever been stupid enough to pour gasoline into an open drum and drop a match into it. Doesn`t mean it has not happened, but whoever did it, if they lived to tell of it, certainly never spoke of it to anyone! gasoline fire did "melt" a fairly large section of a concrete and steel bridge. First off, concrete does not melt. It will crack and scale, if enough heat is applied, but it don't melt. Second, the bridge sagged, but the steel did not melt either. That is what happens to steel when it gets hot; it sags, esp. when it is loaded with weight. By the way, concrete is heavy, so the bridge was carrying a lot of weight, and that is what caused the sag as the steel lost its tensile strenght. You need to consider something; just because some ignorant so-called newsreporter said something about a bridge melting, does not make it fact. The pictures I saw of the bridge certainly had steel sagging down, but I saw no puddles of steel below the bridge... but hey, maybe you know something I do not! Ummmmmmmmm, probably not...... Last but not least, do some research on how hot oil well fires get- which burn totally undistilled crude which by your "resoning" should burn even at lower temperatures than kerosene or diesel - And once again, apples and what, pears(?), this time! Is this another example of ignorance, or just plain stupidity? Undistilled crude is EXTREMELY dangerous because it is FULL of many, many different chemicals, including natural gas. And what is in the undistilled crude varies widely from oil field to oil field, but in nearly all cases, except in some cases of very heavy crude, it is flammable with only a spark. In fact, oil field fires have been set off with dropped tools sparking on a steel deck, and with static electricity. So I would suggest that you look for other types of info, or, read a few books, before you continue to lecture me.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
I wish I lived in a world where diesel does not catch fire and steel becomes stronger with fire not weaker. I am so pissed off that we have all had to pay the scam for diesel fuel fire warning stickers and the biggest scam of all - fireproofing steel beams in buildings when now we know thanks to the scholarship of these 9/11 truthers steel is not affected by fire heat - even heat from burning jet fuel or diesel fires. That is millions of dollars wasted on needless fireproofing and warning labels. That is the real scam - the fireproofing and flammable warning label industry.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Paper burns 10 times faster than wood or coal. Which one would you heat your house with, the one with the "faster flame speed," or the one that takes longer to get going, but releases more energy once it does? You're confusing volatility, energy, temperature, and heat. The issue at hand is what fuels can generate enough heat to melt steel. Gasoline, crude oil, and kerosene all have that ability under the right conditions. And all of them can generate temperatures in the high 2,000's Farenheit. LMAO. Why don't they use av gas on the space shuttle instead of aluminum and a perchlorate oxidizer, for "more thrust" then? Gasoline does not generate any higher temperatures than other hydrocarbons. It simply vaporizes and ignites at a lower temperature. Care to explain why diesel engines are heavier than gasoline engines, then? The diesel fuel should burn cooler and generate less heat, according to your theory. So why's all that cast iron necessary when many automobile engines can get by with aluminum almost everywhere except the combustion chambers? I put "melt" in quotes. The gasoline generated enough heat to cause a structural collapse of a metal and concrete bridge. The fire generated enough heat to melt certain critical components and cause a collapse of a steel and concrete structure. Again you're confusing volatility with heat with temperature. Since crude oil is denser than gasoline, someone using your theories would expect the mixture to burn at lower temperatures than gasoline. However the fact is crude oil fires burn just as hot if not hotter. That's because it has the denser hydrocarbons which really heat things up once the more volatile lo- temperature burning components get the other things to their [higher] ignition temperatures. I'd suggest you look at how hot a gas fire, a kerosene fire, and a crude oil fire burn - AND - how much energy for a given quantity each releases.
http://stopthelie.com/freeway_collapse.html FREEWAY COLLAPSE I can already hear defenders of the official account screaming "See, fire can cause a steel structure to collapse-the bridge collapsed!" Comparing the circumstances surrounding the fire and subsequent partial collapse of this bridge to the circumstances surrounding the fires and subsequent complete collapse of the towers and WTC 7 is flawed from end to end. This fact should be obvious to most people; but let's point out a few things just in case they weren't already noticed. So to quickly recap: -Ending with a paragraph from The 1-hour Guide to 9/11.
1. All "un-offical" accounts of WTC 7 have - up to this time - begun with the statement "No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire." This statement is now demonstrably untrue, so they're modifying their statement. "But...but...but...it was a freeway bridge! But...but...but...it weakened a load-bearing truss! [Professor Thomas Eagar, do you hear them saying that trusses can be heated to the point of failure? LMAO!]" Doesn't matter. It was a steel structure, and it collapsed due to fire. Fires can generate enough heat to cause steel to structurally fail. The claim that they cannot are at the core of all "un-official" 911 accounts. 2. Building 7 had "louvers" designed to insure adequate air supply to the emergency power generators. Therefore air supply to the fires is not an issue. All fires in Building 7 had plenty of air.
* * * This is what happened. A Pumped Oil Spill From your Counterpunch article, the one you "forgot" to provide a link for: November 28, 2006 By MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. * * * This article is a visualization of what probably happened. Only gods and the dead have certainty; we, the living, have rationality and courage to guide us through the puzzles and the perils of life. When technical accuracy might otherwise require an author to mire his work in a morass of qualifiers, he may choose to preface his work by stating a general qualifier that attaches to the entirety of what follows, the sum and each individual part. In this case, extracting a quote without providing the qualifying preface generates the classic quote out of context. The author, Manuel Garcia, Jr., qualified his article as being only his "visualization of what probably happened," in his opinion. He explicitly stated that he lacked certainty regarding what happened. The source used to "support" your claim to certainty in what happened admits he is uncertain and his entire article was only speaking of his perceived "probability." Where he says, as you quoted, "This is what happened," it is in the context solely of his perception of probability. Quoting from where the qualifier appears to where AGAviator started quoting, including the first paragraph quoted by AGAviator: WTC 7: By The Numbers WTC 7 was a 176 m (576 ft) tall, 47 story building with a trapezoidal cross section (about): 99 m (325 ft) along the north face, 76 m (249 ft) along the south face, 45 m (148 ft) north-south width, and 47 m (153 ft) along the east and west sides, (4). WTC 7 was about 107 m (350 ft) north of WTC 1, across Vesey Street. A number of engineering reports have been written about the collapse of WTC 7, because of its uniqueness. A consistent story emerges through the mass of detail. The basic model of the WTC 7 collapse was stated in the earliest report, by FEMA (1c), and increasingly amplified upon by subsequent investigators at NIST -- the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal agency within the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration. See footnotes (5), (6), (7) and (8). WTC 7 was built in 1987 over an existing Consolidated Edison electrical substation. The Con Ed substation was three stories high, and took up the northern half of the footprint of WTC 7. The 1967 construction of the substation accounted for the eventuality of a building above it, and a much larger and stronger foundation was built. Also, a series of columns rose through the area of the substation, for future use. The design of WTC 7 was larger than anticipated by the provisions of 1967, so additional foundation columns were sunk. Also, the placement of columns in WTC 7 above Floor 7 did not match all the tops of columns connected to bedrock and waiting to be used. Thus, a series of trusses were designed to transfer the vertical loads above Floor 7 and redistribute them laterally to match the waiting columns below Floor 4. This transition used triangular assemblies of structural steel joined into a framework spanning two stories, Floors 5 & 6. Part of the transition structure included a Floor 5 made of 11 inches of reinforced concrete on top of a 3 inch 18 gage composite metal deck (supported on I beams); Floor 6 was 3 inches of concrete on a 3 inch 20 gage metal deck; the northern half of Floor 7 was 5 inches of reinforced concrete on a 3 inch 18 gage metal deck, and the southern half of Floor 7 was 8 inches of concrete with two layers of reinforcement (no metal deck). Floors 8 and up (except 21, 22, 23) had 2.5 inches of concrete over 3 inch 20 gage metal decks. These metal decks were sheets of metal with corrugations (metal thickness listed by gage number). The combination of three massive floors and interconnected triangular supports made the framework of Floor 5 to Floor 7 a diaphragm locking WTC 7 together laterally, core columns and walls (encasing elevator shafts and stairwells) to perimeter columns. The construction of WTC 7 above Floor 7 was similar to that of the WTC Towers (9). The irregular framing between Floors 5 and 7 made for less desirable tenant space, but it was well protected by the robust construction, an ideal location for the building's machinery and the emergency power systems. Machine Space and Emergency Power Systems Only machinery resided on Floors 5 and 6. Floor 6 had two large cut-outs, one along the east side, another in the southwest corner, to allow for two-story mechanical spaces. A set of louvers spanned the height of Floors 5 and 6 along the eastern face of the building. Table 1 lists the equipment that resided on Floors 5 through 9 (ground level is floor 0). Table 1, Machinery on Floors 5 to 9, WTC 7 Floor Items 9 1 generator (1 tank) for (tenant) U. S. Secret Service 8 1 generator (1 tank) for (tenant) American Express 7 3 generators (1 tank) for the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management 6 switchgear, storage 5 11 generators (1 tank), switchgear, transformers. The "tank" noted in the table would be a 275 gallon diesel fuel tank, the maximum size allowed on any given floor by the NYC Building Code. There were five emergency power systems in WTC 7. Three of them (American Express, OEM, U.S. Secret Service) drew fuel from the other two and larger systems (Salomon Smith Barney, Silverstein Properties). (1c), (8)
This argument is demonstrably untrue. A New York Times article of November 29, 2001, stated, "experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire...." That some people have failed to retain the correct terminology, "modern, steel-reinforced high-rise," does not suddenly apply an inartful comment to "all unofficial accounts." This argument is demonstrably irrelevant. No steel frame building similar to the WTC towers had ever collapsed due to fire. Regarding the bridge, the assertion is that steel bolts were compromised, not massive steel beams. The FEMA Report stated there was relatively light structural damage prior to the collapse of WTC-7. Lead NIST investigator Shyam Sunder stated, "Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time." A working hypothesis cannot magically transform itself into a declarative statement of "this is what happened." The NIST Report states, "Floor 5 -- which did not have any exterior windows and contained the only pressurized fuel distribution system on the south, west and north floor areas -- is considered a possible fire initiation location, subject to further data and/or analysis that improve knowledge of fire conditions in this area." The NIST Report states, "This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5." New York Times Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center November 29, 2001 By JAMES GLANZ Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire. Engineers and other experts, who quickly came to understand how hurtling airplanes and burning jet fuel had helped bring down the main towers, were for weeks still stunned by what had happened to 7 World Trade Center. That building had housed, among other things, the mayor's emergency command bunker. It tumbled to its knees shortly after 5:20 on the ugly evening of Sept. 11. The building had suffered mightily from the fire that raged in it, and it had been wounded by the flying beams falling off the towers. But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country. As engineers and scientists struggle to explain the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, they have begun considering whether a type of fuel that was inside the building all along created intensely hot fires like those in the towers: diesel fuel, thousands of gallons of it, intended to run electricity generators in a power failure. One tank holding 6,000 gallons of fuel was in the building to provide power to the command bunker on the 23rd floor. Another set of four tanks holding as much as 36,000 gallons were just below ground on the building's southwest side for generators that served some of the other tenants. Engineers and other experts have already uncovered evidence at the collapse site suggesting that some type of fuel played a significant role in the building's demise, but they expect to spend months piecing together the picture of what remains a disturbing puzzle. "Even though Building 7 didn't get much attention in the media immediately, within the structural engineering community, it's considered to be much more important to understand," said William F. Baker, a partner in charge of structural engineering at the architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. "They say, `We know what happened at 1 and 2, but why did 7 come down?' " Engineers said that here and across the country, diesel-powered generators are used in buildings like hospitals and trading houses, where avoiding power outages is crucial. Partly for that reason, Jonathan Barnett said, a definitive answer to the question of what happened in 7 World Trade Center is perhaps the most important question facing investigators. "It's just like when you investigate a plane crash," said Dr. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. "If we find a weakness in the building or a deficiency in the building that causes that collapse, we then want to find that weakness in other buildings and fix it." In many ways, 7 World Trade Center, built and owned by Silverstein Properties, was structurally similar to its towering cousins across Vesey Street to the south. The weight of the building was supported by a relatively tight cluster of steel columns around the center of each floor and a palisade of columns around the outside, in the building's facade. Sprayed on the steel, almost like imitation snow in holiday decorations, was a layer of fireproofing material, generally less than an inch thick. Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration. Most of three other buildings in the complex, 4, 5 and 6 World Trade, stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire. Still, experts concede, in a hellish day, 7 World Trade might have sustained structural injuries never envisioned in fire codes. That day began with flaming pieces of steel and aluminum and, horribly, human bodies raining around the building. With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch. It fell in the late afternoon, hampering rescue efforts and hurling its beams into the ground like red-hot spears. Within the building, the diesel tanks were surrounded by fireproofed enclosures. But some experts said that like the jet fuel in the twin towers, the diesel fuel could have played a role in the collapse of 7 World Trade. "If the enclosures were damaged, then yes, this would be enough fuel to explain why the building collapsed," Dr. Barnett said. Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks. If further studies of the debris confirm the findings of extremely high temperature, Dr. Barnett said, "the smoking gun would be the fuel." Others experts agreed that the diesel fuel could have speeded the collapse, but said the building might have met the same fate simply because of how long it burned. "The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, "The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse." Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat. The fuel tanks were not the only highly flammable materials in the building. But while some engineers have speculated that a high-pressure gas main ruptured and caught fire, there was none in the area, said David Davidowitz, vice president of gas engineering at Consolidated Edison. The building was served only by a four-inch, low-pressure line for the building's cafeteria, Mr. Davidowitz said. The mayor's command bunker, built in 1998, included electrical generators on the seventh floor, where there was a small fuel tank, said Jerome M. Hauer, director of the mayor's Office of Emergency Management from 1996 to 2000. That tank was fed by a tank containing thousands of gallons of diesel fuel on a lower floor, he said. Francis E. McCarton, a spokesman for the emergency management office, confirmed that assessment. "We did have a diesel tank in the facility," he said. "Yes, it was used for our generating system." The manager of the building when it collapsed, Walter Weems, said the larger tank sat on a steel-and-concrete pedestal on the second floor and held 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel. He said an even larger cache, four tanks containing a total of 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel, sat just below ground level in the loading dock near the southwest corner of the building. "I'm sure that with enough heat it would have burned," Mr. Hauer said of the diesel. "The question is whether the collapse caused the tank to rupture, or whether the material hitting the building caused the tank to rupture and enhance the fire." Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons. A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. "Any structure anywhere in the world, if you put it in these conditions, it will not stand," Mr. Marcus said. "The buildings are not designed to be a torch."
This is an intellecually honest statement. Nobody knows with complete certainty what caused the collapse of WTC7. However I'd have to say it's more "probable" that a diesel fuel fire weakened the structure to the point of collapse, than the structure was blown up with explosives because Silverstein said "pull." You replied: I was discussing the conspiracy theory accounts of the WTC collapses, not what the MSM says. Are you claiming that the New York Times supports the "un- official" stories of the "controlled demolition" of WTC7? Last but not least, if you really, truly, absolutely can't give up your notion that WTC7 collapsed because Silverstein said pull, that does not completely rule out the collapse due to diesel fuel fires weakening the structure. All you have to do is allege that "they" placed some of their explosives along the pressurized fuel lines, which started some fires that burned out of control, and everybody walks away happy. But you have to say *probably.* LOL.
This statement is now demonstrably untrue, so they're modifying their statement. Go away shill. One beam collapsed, not the entire structure. Notice it landed on top of another section of the structure which still stands? Duh! But you know all this. You pretend to be stupid but in reality, you are just shilling for the Official Fairy Tale. Go chase yourself.
This is an intellecually honest statement. Nobody knows with complete certainty what caused the collapse of WTC7. Yes, the author of the piece was being intellectual honest by including his qualifying statement. You were being intellectually DIShonest by omitting a link and the qualifying statement. You are still being intellectually DIShonest. He did not qualify his article by saying he did not have "complete certainty," he said his "article is a visualization of what probably happened." However I'd have to say it's more "probable" that a diesel fuel fire weakened the structure to the point of collapse, than the structure was blown up with explosives because Silverstein said "pull." Even in the absence of evidence, you are entitled to your unsupported opinion. I was discussing the conspiracy theory accounts of the WTC collapses, not what the MSM says. What you -said- was, "All 'un-offical' accounts of WTC 7 have - up to this time - begun with the statement 'No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire.'" What you said was in response to someone posting a subtitled report from Italian television which is MSM. In any context you care to put it, your statement is untrue. "The impossible happens - a first in the 100-year history of steel-frame towers. 'The South Tower collapsed...." [9/11 revealed, Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall, p. 88] "However, as Hoffman points out, this suggestion was deceptive, because there are 'no examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed buildings outside of [the alleged cases of] 9/11/01.'" [Debunking 9/11 Debunking, David Ray Griffin, p.164] Most unofficial accounts refer to steel-framed buildings. As for your BAC-like wordsmithing, ALL the sources were discussing buildings and not bridges. Are you claiming that the New York Times supports the "un- official" stories of the "controlled demolition" of WTC7? No. Are you claiming that a NYT article is not "'un-offical' accounts of WTC 7" which is the phrasing you employed? Last but not least, if you really, truly, absolutely can't give up your notion that WTC7 collapsed because Silverstein said pull, that does not completely rule out the collapse due to diesel fuel fires weakening the structure. Last but not least, I did not make any of the claims you attribute to me. I have said I have found no theory, the government theory or any other theory, completely persuasive. There is insufficient evidence available to state with certainty precisely what happened. All you have to do is allege that "they" placed some of their explosives along the pressurized fuel lines, which started some fires that burned out of control, and everybody walks away happy. All you have to do is make up some bullshit that I did not say, argue against it, and walk away happy. But you have to say *probably.* Probably. You have to take a source that says "probably" and assert that you walked down from a mountain with the text inscribed on stone tablets. LOL
Silverstein said "Pull" "Pull" my finger!
I put a link on my earlier comments, numbnuts. It was your post #3 on this thread. You had no earlier comments on this thread, numbnuts. And you are going to allege you have *complete certainty* that Silverstein said "Pull," which therefore means explosive charges were detonated? I have *absolute certainty* to a degree of metaphysical certitude that Silverstein said "Pull." To be more precise, Silverstein said, "pull it." "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull building six." ... "We had to be very careful about how we demolished building six. WTC-6 BEING PULLED "' ... maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." What do you think Silverstein meant when he said, "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it?" I have more evidence than you do. And you would post it but then you would have to kill everyone on the net. Imagination is not evidence. The conspiracy theories all have said - up to this point - that fires don't get hot enough to melt steel and that no steel structures have collapsed due to fire. This is, of course, bullshit. Fires can get hot enough to melt steel. What is questioned is whether any particular fire in the WTC on 9/11 could have gotten hot enough to severely weaken or melt steel. The NIST report stated that the jet fuel burned up in about 15 minutes. What remained was oxygen starved fires burning whatever combustibles were available. Neither before nor since has any steel frame hi-rise office building had its steel frame demolished by fire. The government conspiracy theory is just another conspiracy theory. If this was not a conspiracy then one person had to do it all. All 9/11 theories, of necessity, are conspiracy theories, just as are all theories about the Lincoln assassination. This is not a question of whether a conspiracy theory applies, but which one applies. Also, in the Italian broadcast it appears that the broadcaster uses the word edificio which is building. It appears that the subtitle is responsible for the imprecise language and the broadcast, in Italian, is terminologically correct. Buildings and bridges are both load-bearing structures, Bubba. If a fire can bring down a bridge it can bring down a building. Impeccable logic. The frame of a mobile home is a load bearing structure. If a fire can bring down a mobile home, it can therefore bring down a steel-frame hi-rise office building. Have another Billy Beer, Bubba. I have said I have found no theory, the government theory or any other theory, completely persuasive. There is insufficient evidence available to state with certainty precisely what happened. Then you can't rule out the possiblity of pressurized fuel lines feeding fires that structurally weakened the building to the point of collapse. I cannot rule out a death ray from Mars, but there is about as much evidence for that as for your nonsense. If your pressurized fuel line sprayed fuel all over the floor on the 5th floor, it either ignited quickly or it formed a lake and flowed around a 40,000 sq ft area and down any stairs or elevators it could find. The NIST report says that no diesel odor was detected between 11:30 am and 2:30 pm. It would have been hard to miss. If your pressurized fuel line sprayed fuel all over the floor on the 5th floor, and it ignited quickly, all that diesel fuel was burning on the 5th floor for hours and hours undetected. Assuming the fire burned hot enough and long enough to cause the failure of immense structural steel beams, it is questionable why the fire did not burn hot enough and intense enough to burn through either an exterior wall, a floor or a ceiling and become visible as a raging inferno. It seems it must go through the steel beams without going through walls, floors or ceilings. Assuming fires on the other floors hot enough and intense enough to cause the failure of immense structural steel beams must also assume a fire which did not even break the windows. It must also assume that the fire burned for hours and hours, destroying the massive steel beams without destroying the line which is pumping the fuel into the room. And, of course, the pump continued to pump. "Pull" my finger! It is not available until you stop pulling your pud. What Really Happened sums up the pressurized fuel theory as follows. In evaluating the potential that a fire fed by fuel oil caused the collapse, it is necessary to determine whether the following events occurred: Although there is no physical evidence available, this hypothesis assumes that it is possible that both the inner and outer pipes were severed, presumably by debris from the collapse of WTC 1. Depending on ventilation sources for air, this is sufficient to flashover the space along the north wall of this floor. The temperature of the fire gases would be governed to a large extent by the availability of air for combustion. The hot gases generated would be blocked from impacting Trusses 1 and 2 by the masonry wall separating the generation area from the mechanical equipment room, assuming that this wall was still intact after collapse of the tower and there were no other significant penetrations of walls. The air required for combustion of 75-gpm (160 MW potential) diesel fuel is approximately 100,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm). If less air is available for combustion, the burning rate will decrease proportionally. As the engine generator sets come on line, automatic louvers open and 80,000 cfm are provided for each of the nine SSB engines. A portion is used as combustion air for the drive engines; the rest is for cooling, but could supply air to an accidental fire. Given open louvers and other sources for entry of air, it is, therefore, probable that a fuel oil spill fire would have found sufficient air for combustion. For this to happen, the fire must have propagated either fuel or hot gases to the members in the truss in the mechanical equipment room. If the double door to the mechanical equipment room was either open or fell from its frame at some point, or if the door was undercut, the spilled fuel oil might have flowed into the mechanical equipment room, enveloping truss members in the main (hottest) portion of the flame. Such a situation could produce an exposure possibly exceeding that in the standard furnace test producing localized heat fluxes approaching the 200 kW/m2 used by Underwriters Laboratories to simulate a hydrocarbon pool fire, with exposure temperatures in the range of 1,200 degrees Centigrade (2,200 degrees Fahrenheit). If such intense exposure existed, the steel would be weakened more rapidly than normally expected. If the door was of superior construction (as with a fire door), it is unlikely that the fire would have reached the trusses in the mechanical equipment room until such time that the door failed. So we have been presented with the following absurd story: =======================
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1795 The originators of the video: "Seven is exploding" "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
great post!
It's the rest of the videos to the first one honway posted. It was aired in Italy last month. Good for Italy! And it's an interesting website.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
As usual, you left out something. They were talking about the firefighting effort and the risk to firefighters just before Silverstein said that. Perhaps by "it", he meant the firefighting effort? And you also forgot to mention that "pull" isn't a term the demolition industry uses when they take down a structure with explosives as you are asserting. It's used when they literally pull it down. http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf "We have never, ever heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway." Case in point. They pulled WTC 6 down with cables. There are statements and photos proving it. You knew that, didn't you, NC? Or didn't you visit the links I posted to this forum previously about the "pull it" controversy. Like this one: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm which has such gems as this: ************* "Conspiracy theorists say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorists use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition. --------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
FALSE. The John Hopkins mortality study didn't claim 650,000 CIVILIANS have been killed in Iraq. It stated quite clearly that they did NOT ask whether the claimed dead in their sample were members of Saddam's military, insurgents, or civilians. Yet another example of the lies posted by the *truth* movement. And I sure wish I understood Italian. Because I bet I could prove the video clips you posted are filled with similar lies. Please ... one of you ... post an English translation so I can prove that.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
I must say you are trying very hard to eclipse someone else with limited posting capabilties as the premier spammer on this site. However I will briefly address a couple of your major comments. Right after he said "We've had such a terrible loss of life?" I really have never, ever, seen such a gross inability to place comments into their proper context as with the blithering idiots who assert that right after he expresses concern about a terrible loss of life, he would give a command to destroy a building and put even more lives at risk. It really takes a very special kind of stupid to make that allegation. In this context, "Pull" obviously means "Pull Back." Duh. But the same people who can't connect pulling back from a danger zone with a concern for a potential loss of life, also can't figure out that thick black smoke is from combustion of something quite a bit more messy than paper and office furniture.
As usual, you left out something. They were talking about the firefighting effort and the risk to firefighters just before Silverstein said that. As usual, your bullshit does not pass the laugh test. The firefighters were ordered out of WTC-7 at about 11:30 am. When the FDNY Chief Officer for that scene arrived at Barclay and West Broadway, the firefighters were already evacuating the building. Perhaps by "it", he meant the firefighting effort? What firefighting effort? Firefighting was never started in building 7. And you also forgot to mention that "pull" isn't a term the demolition industry uses when they take down a structure with explosives as you are asserting. It's used when they literally pull it down. I accept your assertion that WTC-7 is still standing, it was only destroyed figuratively, but literally it is still there. I provided the audio that they were about to "pull" WTC-6 and the video of them "pulling" it. You provided your usual bullshit. Case in point. They pulled WTC 6 down with cables. There are statements and photos proving it. You knew that, didn't you, NC? Right after they said they were going to "pull it," what happened? Did they suspend firefighting efforts or did they drop the building? So there is proof that fireman can be "pulled". Yeah. The ones in WTC-7 were "pulled" at about 11:30 am. According to Larry Silverstein, after he said "pull it" they watched the building come down. The building came down at about 5:20 pm, about 6 hours after FDNY had evacuated the building, and about 3 hours after they abandoned the area around the building altogether. First, jet fuel is only what started the fires. Do you have any video of a jet hitting WTC-7? Do you forget that this is a thread about WTC-7 and you are responding to my post about WTC-7 and the theory of pressurized diesel fuel going to the fifth floor and taking out all the steel beams simultaneously? Office buildings like the WTC contain many things that can burn ... and burn very hot. Right. Typically, office fires in a building such as the WTC towers cause the buildings to collapse. Why there are millions of examples such as... uhh.... uhhh... gimme time... uhhh... I know... the office fire that consumed... well... let Glanz and Lipton describe it: There was another reason the fire spread so quickly. For anyone who knew nothing of the long-standing problems with fireproofing at the trade center, this unexpected factor would be shocking: just as in the make-believe tower where Steve McQueen did the firefighting, the "fire-stopping" at the World Trade Center was missing. A foot-wide hole between the floors allowed hot gases to snake upward, setting fires all the way to the seventeenth floor, while burning embers dropped down the hole, igniting fires all the way to the ninth floor. Kull concentrated on the eleventh floor, which he said "was like fighting a blowtorch," so hot that all of his men got their necks and ears burned. A second and then a third alarm had to be called, ultimately drawing 132 firefighters to the north tower. It would be three hours before the last of the fire was out. The damage would take weeks to repair—the southeast corner of the eleventh floor was little more than a charred shell—but the impact of the fire would be permanent. After assuring the New York City Fire Department that the fire-protection systems in the twin towers were first rate, the Port Authority now had to contend with clear evidence to the contrary. "Had the building been occupied, and given the stack action that exists in this 110-story building," Fire Commissioner O'Hagan later wrote, "the rescue problem would have been tremendous." Adorno was not finished with his mischief. "More fires," a man said in an anonymous call to the Port Authority security desk, unless the maintenance workers received a promised raise. Adorno then waited three months. Over the night of Monday, May 19, 1975, he set seven fires, this time in the south tower, on the twenty-fifth, twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, thirty-second, and thirty-sixth floors. He was arrested one day later, but the consequences were just beginning to play out. Spurred by the fires, a group of state employees, including experts in state and city fire codes, organized an impromptu inspection squad. Gennaro Fischetti, a workers' compensation judge who led the effort, was literally having nightmares about the trade center. The recurring dream involved his being trapped in a stairwell during a fire. During his waking hours, he sat in his courtroom at the trade center looking at the fifty to one hundred disabled people who filed in each day for workers' compensation cases. In case of a fire, "we couldn't possibly get enough employees to carry them," Fischetti said. "And if we just put them in the stairways, that would block them and panic would ensue." The survey by Fischetti and his volunteers turned up thirty-eight violations, including exit doors that were locked or blocked by a steel gate, fire-stopping insulation that was still missing, and deficiencies in the fire alarm system that meant it could not be heard across most areas of the acre-size floors. State legislators had already started their own investigation. The next step was a press conference, held right in the World Trade Center plaza on May 23, 1975, just five months after the Towering Inferno premiere. There was "clear and potential danger to fifty-five thousand persons," declared State Senator Norman J. Levy. "The Port Authority's word 'safe' is not enough." By this time, the Port Authority had no choice but to act. The agency would spend $14 million to install more walls and doors on open floors to prevent the spread of fires, improve the alarm and communications systems, add more smoke detectors, and train extra staff to help the handicapped in case of an emergency. Yet despite the continued insistence by Fire Commissioner O'Hagan that the single most important step would be to install fire sprinklers in the towers, the agency balked. The estimated $43 million it would cost to install the sprinklers was "a figure that at this time is not feasible," said William J. Ronan, the chairman of the Port Authority board and the man who had been Governor Nelson Rockefeller's chief of staff when the trade center was approved. James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky, The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center, 2003, ISBN 0-8050-7691-3. I suppose it did prove that office fires can burn hot... very hot... like a towering inferno... so that it was like fighting a blowtorch... However, for some unexplainable reason, the building decided not to fall down. Back to WTC-7: One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear. In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building's Fire Safety Director and former Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building's floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30. No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m. -- NIST NSTAR 1-8, page 110-11.
In this context, "Pull" obviously means "Pull Back." Duh. There is nothing that quite compares to a blithering idiot who wants, shortly before 5:20 pm, to evacuate WTC-7 which had been evacuated by the firemen at about 11:30 am. When the FDNY Chief Officer for that scene arrived at Barclay and West Broadway, the firefighters were already evacuating the building. Firefighting was never started in building 7. The firefighters at WTC-7 were "pulled" at about 11:30 am. According to Larry Silverstein, after he said "pull it" they watched the building come down. The building came down at about 5:20 pm, about 6 hours after FDNY had evacuated the building, and about 3 hours after they abandoned the area around the building altogether. Damn, some gubermint pimps are too dumb to even read what the gubermint is saying.
One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear. In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building's Fire Safety Director and former Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building's floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30. No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m. -- NIST NSTAR 1-8, page 110-11. FDNY, told about it by Con Ed, must have missed a diesel fuel fire big enough to bring down the building. But the same people who can't connect pulling back from a danger zone with a concern for a potential loss of life, also can't figure out that thick black smoke is from combustion of something quite a bit more messy than paper and office furniture. Please advise the FDNY to improve their training to meet your level of expertise.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
The BLOviator is full of it. You need not waste your energy responding to its shilling.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma Gandhi
The BLOviator is not a scientist either. It's a shill posting talking points and distractions/disruptions to the thread. That's its job.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma Gandhi
He spammed the thread again to hide this link. It's the rest of the videos and the Italian website that created it. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=51633&Disp=55#C55 Just put him on bozo and these threads are much easier to read.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
More Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' So what part of "They were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire" and "We've had such a terrible loss of life" do you blockheads not understand?
15-million-dollar emergency command center http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html Because Lucky Larry is a liar. There were only a few small fires. Later Larry tried to deny he said "pull it", a lie that failed because his video is all over the internet. But what can you expect from such a patriot who sued and collected for TWO terrorist attacks on buildings he had insured only a few months prior.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
Odd. That doesn't say the firefighters were ordered out at 11:30. It says that a Chief Officer was assigned at 11:30. Do you think the only things firefighters do is fight the fires? Hundreds went into the WTC towers and very few actually fought a fire while inside. That's right. Fires burned inside structure for about 7 hours without attempts to extinguish them. Wait. You just told us that firefighters were "ordered out of WTC-7 at about 11:30 am". Were they just slow to obey? Or were you wrong about that? Your response doesn't address the fact that "pull" isn't a term the demolition industry uses with regards to explosive demolitions. They dropped it. But they used the word pull referring to bringing the down with cables. Logical, right? Sorry you didn't prove that. Not with what you posted. Getting desperate yet, NC? Nothing you posted proves that. In fact, the source you quoted ( -- NIST NSTAR 1-8, page 110-11) proves just the opposite: It states: "At approximately 11:30 a.m., FDNY assigned a Chief Officer to take charge of operations at WTC 7. The Chief was initially given orders to put the fires out in WTC 7. ... snip ... Con Edison personnel arrived at the scene and consulted with FDNY. ... snip ... No accurate time is between approximately 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear. In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m." ************* So they hadn't cleared the building of firefighters at 11:30 and the decision wasn't made to fully do so until later ... after the time Silverstein reportedly spoke with the Fire Chief. No, I responded to you posting " What is questioned is whether any particular fire in the WTC on 9/11 could have gotten hot enough to severely weaken or melt steel. The NIST report stated that the jet fuel burned up in about 15 minutes. What remained was oxygen starved fires burning whatever combustibles were available." You are the one showing confusion on this thread, NC. All portions of the Windsor Tower in Madrid that relied on a steel frame collapsed. So it can happen. And, typically, fires aren't started in the manner the WTC towers fires were. After a severe impact which damages not only many structural members but the fire suppression and fire protection systems built into the structure. With 10,000 gallons of jet fuel being immediately released to engulf whole floors of the structure with flame. And with firefighters being unable to reach and fight the fires effectively. And the fact is that many in offices can burn, very very hot. Plastics, for one. Let's talk about the 1975 fire. It wasn't started with an impact. The fire started locally and slowly spread. Firemen were able to get firefighting materials to the fire and fight them effectively. There are some big differences there. Not sure what you hoped to prove, NC.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
But unlike you, angle, I can actually quote scientists and engineers with expertise in structures, fire and steel. You? You rely on sub-atomic particle physicists, experts in dental materials, economists, water treatment experts, software developers, janitors, theologians, philosophers and psychologists. ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
BAC EDITED VERSION "At approximately 11:30 a.m., FDNY assigned a Chief Officer to take charge of operations at WTC 7. The Chief was initially given orders to put the fires out in WTC 7. ... snip ... Con Edison personnel arrived at the scene and consulted with FDNY. ... snip ... No accurate time is between approximately 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear. In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m." ************* So they hadn't cleared the building of firefighters at 11:30 and the decision wasn't made to fully do so until later ... after the time Silverstein reportedly spoke with the Fire Chief. UNEDITED VERSION - PARTS LEFT OUT BY BAC APPEAR IN BLUE NIST NSTAR 1-8 WTC INVESTIGATION Analysis of Emergency Responder Operations pp. 164-5 of the PDF, numbered pages 110-1 of the report. ------------------------ At approximately 11:30 a.m., FDNY assigned a Chief Officer to take charge of operations at WTC 7. The Chief was initially given orders to put the fires out in WTC 7. [382] From the Chiefs assigned location at WTC 7, he reported that looking south toward WTC 7, they could not see the building because of the large smoke and dust cloud. The Chief Officer was able to negotiate the debris fields, get to the building, and see the WTC 7 logo on the side. There were numerous burned out FDNY vehicles around WTC 7. At the comer of Vesey and West Broadway, a FDNY Engine was connected to a hydrant at the comer of WTC 7. Hose lines were stretched, and the Engine's pump was still running even though the Engine was on fire and was almost burned out. There was no water coming out of the hydrant system. [383] One FDNY Chief Officer that entered WTC 7 indicated that he opened a standpipe on the 4th floor of one stairway and found no water in the standpipe system. [384] A FDNY fire boat and the retired FDNY fire boat "Harvey" were located at the shore on the Hudson River near the site. They were starting to stretch lines up to the WTC. [385] According to the FDNY first-person interviews, water was never an issue at WTC 7 since firefighting was never started in the building. [386] When the Chief Officer in charge of WTC 7 got to Barclay Street and West Broadway, numerous firefighters and officers were coming out of WTC 7. These firefighters indicated that several blocks needed to be cleared around WTC 7 because they thought that the building was going to collapse. [387] Con Edison personnel arrived at the scene and consulted with FDNY. They wanted to know if they should cut the power off at the WTC 7 power station. It was decided to leave the power on and not allow Con Edison personnel to enter WTC 7 because it was not safe. [388] The Con Edison personnel also indicated that fuel tanks were located in the lower level of WTC 7. However, they could not determine if the fuel tanks were involved with the fires burning in the building. FDNY personnel reported that they did not see any indication of burning liquid fuels before the building collapsed. [389] No accurate time is 381 WTC 7 Interviews 2041604 and 1041704, spring 2004. 110 NIST NCSTAR 1-8, WTC Investigation ------------------------ Analysis of Emergency Responder Operations available for this event during the operations; however, the sequence of events indicates that it occurred between approximately 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear. [390] In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building's Fire Safety Director and former Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building's floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30. [391] No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m. The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building's condition and FDNY's capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor. [392] He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified: [393], [394] At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. [395], [396] The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed. 390 FDNY Interview 26, winter 2004. NIST NCSTAR 1-8, WTC Investigation 111 ------------------------
[BAC] Odd. That doesn't say the firefighters were ordered out at 11:30. It says that a Chief Officer was assigned at 11:30. NIST NSTAR 1-8 WTC INVESTIGATION pp. 164-5 of the PDF, numbered pages 110-1 of the report. ------------------------ At approximately 11:30 a.m., FDNY assigned a Chief Officer to take charge of operations at WTC 7. The Chief was initially given orders to put the fires out in WTC 7. [382] From the Chiefs assigned location at WTC 7, he reported that looking south toward WTC 7, they could not see the building because of the large smoke and dust cloud. The Chief Officer was able to negotiate the debris fields, get to the building, and see the WTC 7 logo on the side. There were numerous burned out FDNY vehicles around WTC 7. At the comer of Vesey and West Broadway, a FDNY Engine was connected to a hydrant at the comer of WTC 7. Hose lines were stretched, and the Engine's pump was still running even though the Engine was on fire and was almost burned out. There was no water coming out of the hydrant system. [383] One FDNY Chief Officer that entered WTC 7 indicated that he opened a standpipe on the 4th floor of one stairway and found no water in the standpipe system. [384] A FDNY fire boat and the retired FDNY fire boat "Harvey" were located at the shore on the Hudson River near the site. They were starting to stretch lines up to the WTC. [385] According to the FDNY first-person interviews, water was never an issue at WTC 7 since firefighting was never started in the building. [386] When the Chief Officer in charge of WTC 7 got to Barclay Street and West Broadway, numerous firefighters and officers were coming out of WTC 7. These firefighters indicated that several blocks needed to be cleared around WTC 7 because they thought that the building was going to collapse. [387] 381 WTC 7 Interviews 2041604 and 1041704, spring 2004.
[BAC #58] Perhaps by "it", he meant the firefighting effort? [nc #61] According to the FDNY first-person interviews, water was never an issue at WTC 7 since firefighting was never started in the building. [BAC #70] Do you think the only things firefighters do is fight the fires? Hundreds went into the WTC towers and very few actually fought a fire while inside. I guess he did not mean the non-existent BAC-referenced "firefighting effort."
[BAC #70] Your response doesn't address the fact that "pull" isn't a term the demolition industry uses with regards to explosive demolitions. PULL IT AUDIO MIX W PHONE CALL http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/pull_it_mix.mp3 The linked audio file provides the Larry Silverstein statement, a call denying that "pull it" is a demolition term, and a call to Controlled Demolition, Inc., asking what "pull it" means and the Controlled Demolition response, "'Pull it' is when they actually pull it down."
[BAC #70 mindlessly bloviating] Wait. You just told us that firefighters were "ordered out of WTC-7 at about 11:30 am". Were they just slow to obey? Or were you wrong about that? At 2:30 pm the order was given to "evacuate the site the building." The building had already been evacuated. BAC is dishonestly editing the more complete quote which was fully provided in my #61.
Interesting, it appears that professional firemen, who get killed regularly by structure failures, didn't have such an unshakeable faith in the integrity of steel buildings as some posters on the Internet.
You tried to claim that Silverstein had his conversation with the Fire Chief when there was no firefighters in WTC 7 so there were no firefighters to "pull". You did this by implying they were all evacuated from inside the building at 11:30 am. Now you've revised that to "shortly after 11:30". But all Silverstein said was that in "the afternoon" he had his conversation and your own sources indicate that " the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor" sometime between 12:30 and 2 pm ... in the afternoon.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Professional Firefighters DO NOT usually get killed by fires . Other people do, Your statement is close to idiotic. Outside of the WTC disaster, trained firefighters would stay outside the kill zone and pump AFFF on the thing.
INDEED, HOURS AFTER THERE WERE NO FIREFIGHTERS IN THE BUILDING. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons. "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." [VIDEO] http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." -- Larry Silverstein. "At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. [395], [396] The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed." The firemen evacuated the building at about 11:30 am. They evacuated the site around the building at 2:30 pm. Larry Silverstein said "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Just like everyone else, Larry Silverstein watched the building collapse or implode in a controlled demolition at 5:20 pm. "It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..." [VIDEO] http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_blow_up.wmv Damn. Just damn. It wasn't about to fall down, it was about to blow up.
"Your statement is close to idiotic." More than 100 firefighters die on the job each year.
Yeah, I caught on. Thanks for the note. I wonder if him and BeAC are posting from the Pentagon, Langley, or some Jewish group in New York..... inquiring minds want to know.....
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
BeAChooser posted on 2006-07-17 01:40:08 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=150176&Disp=21&Trace=on#C21 That was your response to the post immediately before your's by Mr D who posted quotes to criticize Zionism. In no way did he post anti-Semitism. But you saw oppertunity to exploit Goldi's religion to silence a critic. But then again, you never let the facts get in the way of your kook agenda, do you?
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
bug off bozo http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=149479&Disp=24#C24 BrerRabbit posted on 2006-07-12 20:58:50 ET Amazing how one need hardly look at your posting record to find bozo announcements directs at you. How many bozoings have you accrued lately, bait boy? Bet it's way up there.
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
How about because of the binary sarin warhead that turned up as an IED and the fact that Iraq was still in contact with the terrorists who killed 3000+ on 9/11? BeAChooser posted on 2006-06-29 19:32:37 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=148037&Disp=27&Trace=on#C27 So, although absolutely zero connection has been shown between Saddam's government and al Qaeda, you here repeat the chimp and Cheney's quite laughable and debunked claim that Saddam and 9-11 were tied together. Sounds like you are the one having trouble separating perception from reality, not those you bait.
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
What's the problem, ferret? You don't want to discuss WTC 7, the collapse of the WTC towers, or the damage at the Pentagon anymore? I thought that's what this thread was about ... ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
You are repeating yourself. Guess my last post showing how little you care for the truth hit too close to home for comfort. Truth hurt? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM? ROTFLMFAO!
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
From post #277 in this thread: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=146686&Disp=277&Trace=on#C277 So BAC, why is it nobody but you and the Neocon garbage in the Bush Administration repeats such tired, debunked crap? You claim you only post facts and the truth, but here we have two instances of lies of convenience by you. Care to explain yourself? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? ROTFLMFAO!!!!!
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
From post #5 in this thread: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=146335&Disp=5#C5 So Miss Clara, do you still laud the war, feel history will show Bush, al- Maliki and Blair to be due rewards for 'perseverance and faith' and will rate a Mt. Rushmore scale carving somewhere? What drugs were you no when you wrote that? Whatever they were, I sure hope you had a prescription for them. ;-)
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
Well, since you no longer want to talk about WTC7, the collapse of the towers or the damage at the Pentagon (and no wonder ... ROTFLOL!), let's examine your claim that above statements by me are instances of me lying. Well I'm sorry ferret, but I have no record of you or anyone else EVER providing sources or sound logic to shows any of those assertions are lies. Whereas I have and can provide both sources and logic to support each one. Tell you what. Let's consider my first statement: You say that's a lie. Well to begin with, two 9/11 families were awarded over $100 million by U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer based on evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml) in part, because of an editorial that was published July 21, 2001 in the Iraqi newspaper Al-Nasiriya which was owned by Saddam's son, Qusay. The columnist was Naeem Abd Muhalhal, who evidence at the trial indicated had a long term connection with Iraqi Intelligence. On September 12, 2002, Senator Fritz Hollings entered the editorial into the Congressional record (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005332.php ). Here are a few quotes from it: "Meanwhile America has started to pressure the Taliban movement so that it would hand them Bin Ladin, while he continues to smile and still thinks seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House ....." "It seems that they will be going away because the revolutionary Bin Ladin is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. That the man will not be swayed by the plant leaves of Whitman nor by the ``Adventures of Indiana Jones'' and will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs." So just two months before 9/11 we have reference to upcoming attacks on the Pentagon, the White House and, if we are going to curse the memory of Frank Sinatra, New York (since New York, New York was Sinatra's most famous song). The statement that bin Laden "will strike America on the arm that is already hurting" would seem, in hindsight, to narrow down the New York target to the World Trade Center, since that was already attacked (and hurt) in the 1993 bombing. Mulhalhal's editorial also contained the following: “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer." That might be a reference to using airplanes as bullets in the attack. Circumstantial, yes. But what a curious and unlikely coincidence. Especially when Saddam personally praised Muhalhal in the September 1, 2001 issue of that paper for his "documentation of important events and heroic deeds that proud Iraqis have accomplished." Now consider the above in light of the following: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/990304_in.htm "During the Gulf war, Iraq's media and officials threatened revenge in the form of assassinations and bombings. On Jan 30, 1991, INA warned, 'The American arena will not be excluded from the operations and explosions of the Arab and Muslim mujhadin and all the honest strugglers in the world.' On Feb 9, Baghdad Radio read a cable from the chief of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam, 'We will chase them to every corner at all times. No high tower or house of steel will protect them against the fire of truth.'" A curious way of phrasing things... Audio tapes captured in Baghdad after the 2003 invasion, that were recorded in the mid to late 90's, clearly suggest that Saddam and his closest advisors still considered themselves at war with the US despite the cease fire agreement stopping the fighting in the 1991 war. The 1993 bombing was perhaps the first act in continuation of that war. Among the 1993 WTC bomb plotters, the leader was a man with an Iraqi passport named Ramzi Yousef. Ramzi was known to his associates as "Rashid the Iraqi". Now get this ... Yousef was one of the original planners of Operation Bojinka in 1994. That was a plot to attack buildings with airplanes. Another leader in the WTC bomb plot, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Baghdad after the bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Yasin ). Documents found in Iraq after the invasion show he was put on government payroll and given a home. In addition, "an ABC news stringer saw him there in 1994, outside his father's house, and learned from neighbors that he worked for the Iraqi government." Iraq was clearly involved in the first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center towers. So why not the second? The WTC bomb plot can be viewed another way, as well. Although Iraqis were involved, all ten of those convicted in the plot are identified as islamic fundamentalists. Since the anti-war naysayers are always pointing to Saddam's secularism as proof that he would have nothing to do with islamic fundamentalists (like al-Zarqawi), the plot was set up provides a certain deniability on Iraq's part. Perhaps from the very beginning, authorities were meant to suspect islamic terrorists, rather than Iraq. It just didn't go as planned because the FBI had an informant in their midst. This may demonstrate that Saddam was not above instigating a plot where someone else gets blamed. A false flag operation. Throughout the 90's Iraq cultivated a relationship with al-Qaeda and other terrorists. Here's a good summary based on a variety of sources: http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/78/Wtccomp.htm If even a fraction of those assertions are true (and many of them are corroborated by more than one source), then the case for a Saddam / al-Qaeda connection is strong, making pre-awareness of the 9/11 attack and even some Iraqi participation in the 9/11 plot more likely than the anti-war community and the mainstream press wants to admit. For example, Farouk Hijazi, an Iraqi intelligence officer, reportedly met with Bin Laden in Kandahar in December 1998. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," according to a 1999 report in the Guardian. Also in 1998, two of bin Laden’s senior military commanders, Muhammad Abu-Islam and Abdullah Qassim, visited Baghdad for discussions with Qusay Hussein ... the son who owned the paper in which Mulhalhal published his prescient article. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp?pg=2 "On December 28 Milan's Corriere della Sera reported "Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden have sealed a pact." In its issue dated January 11, 1999, Newsweek quoted an anonymous "Arab intelligence officer who knows Saddam personally" as warning that "very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis" against Western targets. The Iraqi plan would be run under one of three "false flags": Palestinian, Iranian, and the "al Qaeda apparatus." All of these groups, Newsweek reported, had representatives in Baghdad." The above source lists a large number of other connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq and reasons to suspect Iraq knew and was involved in more than the anti-war community and liberal media will admit. In any case, let's move on and take the second of the claims you say I'm lying about. Since I obviously was not lying about the first. I had good reasons for claiming what I did. The Czech government to this day maintains they are 70% certain that Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent, Al-Ani, in Europe five months before 9/11 in April, 2001. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030729-093909-9839r.htm and http://edjayepstein.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_edjayepstein_archive.html The intelligence agent's day planner (seized after the war in what had been the Iraq regime's Czech embassy) indicates a meeting on that day with a "Hamburg Student", which coincidentally is the occupation Atta listed on his passport. Atta's whereabouts during the time in question are not known. He disappeared off the FBI's radar in the US for a week around the date of the alleged meeting, immediately after withdrawing $8000 out of a bank account. The ONLY thing suggesting he was still in the US was the use of his cell phone. But the hijackers shared cars, apartments, bank accounts ... why not a cell phone that wouldn't have been usable in Europe anyway? A secret CIA memo, released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, cited evidence that Iraqi intelligence bankrolled Mohamed Atta in the months leading up to 9/11. That memo said Atta met as many as four times in Prague with al Ani prior to the 9/11 attacks. The Czech government stated their certainty that Atta did meet al-Ani on a previous occasion. The 911 Commission said Atta "is known to have been in Prague on two occasions" — once for a single night in December 1994, and once for a single night in June 2000. Curiously enough, 3 days after the 2000 meeting, a large amount of money showed up in Atta's bank account. Three days after the alleged April 2001 meeting, a large amount of money was again deposited to Atta's bank account (and http://respekt.inway.cz/english/clanek_detail.php?f_id=62 ). And this certainly looks like a picture of Atta and Al-Ani together: And note ... Colonel al-Ani headed Iraq's department for "special operations". He's exactly the person Iraq might have picked to handle such an important case. Plus, senior US intelligence sources said the CIA had 'credible information' that at least two other members of the hijacking team also met known Iraqi intelligence agents outside the United States. And then we have Atta asking about crop dusters at a time when the decision had already been made to crash commercial jets into the buildings. And the coincidence of Atta and the hijackers residing in Florida within a few miles of where the very first case of anthrax showed up. And the coincidence of Atta and another hijacker visiting a doctor and a pharmacist to get treatment for skin conditions that in hindsight those two medical professionals as well as doctors from John Hopkin's say were likely anthrax. Now surely you aren't so uninformed that I have to repeat the links to prove the above. Well perhaps you didn't hear about the last one. Here: http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxhijackerslink.html And if the hijackers had something to do with the anthrax attack, where did they get the anthrax? Iraq? So again, you see I'm not lying. I've plenty of basis for claiming what I did. Which brings us to the last claim that you say I'm lying about. Well, here are SOME of the sources I've cited in the past: Stephen Hayes reported that documents reveal that "in 1998, Iraq began training 2,000 Arab Islamic terrorists a year and that this training continued through 2002. ... snip ... As a U.S. intelligence official explained to this author, the United States has interrogated the Iraqis who trained the foreign terrorists and has their accounts of that training, along with material like group pictures of the graduating classes. ... snip ... What is the relationship between the expertise that the IIS developed in IEDs, their training of terrorists, and the present Iraqi insurgency? Document (CMPC-2003-005745) details plans for improving IEDs in 2003 and includes such points as triggering bombs at a distance and by light, as well as "studying the improvement of the explosive power of RDX." We can reasonably infer that such plans existed for 2001 and 2002 as well." Centcom spokesman General Vincent Brooks stated on April 6, 2003: "There was a raid last night by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. What they raided was a training camp near Salman Pak....This raid occurred in response to information that had been gained by coalition forces from some foreign fighters we encountered from other countries, not Iraq. And we believe that this camp had been used to train these foreign fighters in terror tactics.... [T]hat's just one of a number of examples we've found where there is training activity happening inside of Iraq. It reinforces the likelihood of links between his regime and external terrorist organizations, clear links with common interests. Some of these fighters came from Sudan, some from Egypt, and some from other places, and we've killed a number of them and we've captured a number of them." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1618519/posts "2003 Document: Saddam Ordered To Treat The Arab Feedayeen Terrorists The Same As Iraqi Soldiers, Posted on 04/20/2006 2:00:22 PM PDT by jveritas Document ISGQ-2004-00060580 is a memo that contains a direct order form Saddam Hussein in the middle of the war asking to treat the Arab Feedayeen i.e. the non Iraqi Foreign Arab Terrorists as equal as the Iraqi soldier in salary and benefits and not just any soldier but like those in the Special Forces. These are the same Arab terrorists who stayed in Iraq after the removal of the regime and caused those horrible attacks mostly on innocent civilians. This document is a follow on another document where the Iraqi were training Foreign Arab terrorist since the year 2000 (please see those two translations: Document: Iraqi Intelligence To Train Arab Feedayeen Terrorists In the Year 2000 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1617431/posts Document: Saddam Regime Training and Using Foreign Arab Terrorists As Suicide Bombers. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600367/posts ). The extremely strong connection between Saddam and Terrorism is something that we need to tell the whole world about it, because for this reason alone we would have all the right to remove this Terrorist Regime after the 9/11, we just cannot afford to live with it." http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/ "Independent Verification Of jveritas Translation accuracy ... snip ... You will note that all three translations of this document -- performed by three different people working independently of each other -- all translate this section almost identically. All three explicitly show that the Iraqi military had ordered a call for volunteers to carry out suicide attacks on American interests, six months before 9/11 and two years almost to the day prior to our invasion." *********** http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006539.php March 16, 2006 Unlocking History At Leavenworth The documents released by John Negroponte and hosted on a military website at Leavenworth promise to rewrite the long history of Iraq and its place in the war on terror. Just the first few documents have shown links between Saddam's regime and terrorism, including a strong reference to the 9/11 attack by Saddam's own intelligence service. ABC News has begun their own translation of the key documents, as have others in the blogosphere. Let's start with the document that mentions 9/11, a report from the IIS regarding a conversation with a Taliban official: Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him the following: 1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin Laden group visited Iraq. 2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America. 3. That in case it is proven the involvement of Osama Bin Laden group and the Taliban in these destructive operations it is possible that American will conduct strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan. 4. That the Afghani Consul heard about the subject of Iraq relation with Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran. 5. In light of this we suggest to write to the Commission of the above information. Please view… Yours… With regards Signature:……, Initials : A.M.M, 15/9/2001 Foot note: Immediately send to the Chairman of Commission Immediately after 9/11, the US suspected that al-Qaeda had masterminded the attacks, confirming it within days. Until the 20th, when Bush made his speech, the government had not clearly and publicly stated its position to the Taliban. However, the IIS reported four days after the fact that the Taliban believed the US had proof of cooperation between Iraq and Osama bin Laden to attack American targets. The Taliban went out of its way to warn Saddam that the US would retaliate against Iraq when we got the proof together. That explicitly shows cooperation between the two governments. Moreover, the same people who sheltered and sponsored Osama bin Laden turned immediately to Saddam after the attacks for coordination on their response. They would have had no reason to do so -- except knowing that Osama and Saddam had a working relationship in fostering terrorist attacks against America. *************** So you see, ferret, you were wrong about those being examples of me lying. Just as you are wrong about Saddam having no connection to al-Qaeda or 9/11. Just as you are wrong about bombs in the WTC and what damaged the Pentagon.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
I want none of your baitful, egotistical posts that are just spam vehicles. We are done talking 9-11, and I have no interest in your strange delusions that have been thoroughly debunked that Saddam and al Qaeda are linked. You lie, refuse to answer what you don't want to answer, answer with leveraged responses, and post tons of spam that make it impossible to decypher what you are getting at. Your games are tiresome, and you have a new nick, 'pinfish' to play with in LP. Go toy with that. I would love to chat with a person of opposing viewpoint operating in good faith. You do not such a person. I have examined in depth your tactics and modus operandi, you are a sleazy operator, a liar, and a fuckwit. You have no intention of conducting dialog in good faith or with reciprocity of respect or with a desire to achieve effective communication with whom you post with.
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
#2. To: honway (#0)
#3. To: (#0)
(Edited)
#4. To: honway (#0)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#5. To: AGAviator (#3)
This energy is equivalent to that released by an explosion of 367 tons of TNT.
Enemies of the Republic
#6. To: AGAviator (#3)
The debris fall ripping into the southwest corner ruptured the oil pipes of the SSB pressurized fuel distribution system.
Enemies of the Republic
#7. To: (#5)
(Edited)
#8. To: Critter, Destro, YertleTurtle (#6)
That would work out as a fine explanation, but the SW corner was not damaged very much. The gouge out of the corner that NIST portrays in their report is not a gouge at all, but smoke obscuring the corner.
#9. To: Critter (#6)
#10. To: AGAviator (#7)
Enemies of the Republic
#11. To: Critter (#10)
8000 gallons of gasoline working on ONE beam, which did not melt, it sagged.
#12. To: lodwick (#9)
I'm impressed.
Enemies of the Republic
#13. To: Critter (#10)
ONE beam, which did not melt, it sagged
So the bolts melted.
#14. To: AGAviator (#13)
Enemies of the Republic
#15. To: Critter (#14)
if you believe there is some comparison between 7 and this bridge.
You get the honor of being my very first bozo
#16. To: All (#5)
I bet a good rain shower unleashes as much energy as a few hundred tons of TNT too, but normally rain does not take down buildings.
How much energy does a thunderstorm release?
The energy in even a modest thundercloud can be impressive. The first atomic bomb was detonated in the desert near Alamagordo, NM on 16 July 1945. Though the energy released was awesome, it was several times less than that generated by the almost daily thunderstorms which dot the New Mexico mountains on a typical summer day.
Enemies of the Republic
#17. To: AGAviator (#15)
"No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire."
#18. To: AGAviator (#3)
Pulled up by the emergency pumps, the SSB diesel fuel went , from the 6,000 gallon storage tanks, under the loading dock, under the southwestern part of the building, to floor 5.
#19. To: (#3)
(Edited)
Pulled up by the emergency pumps, the SSB diesel fuel went , from the 6,000 gallon storage tanks, under the loading dock, under the southwestern part of the building, to floor 5.
#20. To: All, AGAviator, *9-11* (#19)
#21. To: honway (#18)
#22. To: AGAviator (#21)
Since these systems are designed to start automatically when power fails, the pumps started the minute the building's elecricity went off. The pressurized fuel fed the fires along the path(s) of the fuel lines wherever they were ruptured.
#23. To: AGAviator (#21)
#24. To: honway (#23)
#25. To: AGAviator (#15)
You're not good enough to be my #1, you'll be my third.
Enemies of the Republic
#26. To: AGAviator (#24)
What's so special about floors 1-5 that there were fires elsewhere but not on those floors?
Enemies of the Republic
#27. To: Critter (#26)
#28. To: AGAviator (#24)
And if I do show there were fires on those floors are you going to admit you've been rebutted, or are you going to come up with some other explanation that they weren't important?
#29. To: AGAviator (#24)
What's so special about floors 1-5 that there were fires elsewhere but not on those floors?
#30. To: honway, AGAviator, honway, critter, ALL (#0)
#31. To: honway (#29)
The fuel lines described in your reply did not extend above floor five.
#32. To: AGAviator, honway, ALL (#31)
#33. To: Critter, AGAviator (#5)
What always gets left out is flame speed.
#34. To: richard9151 (#33)
#35. To: AGAviator, Critter (#34)
And heat is measured in *BTU's*, which means that a gallon of diesel fuel or kerosene produces more heat than a gallon of gasoline.
#36. To: richard9151, Destro, YertleTurtle (#35)
(Edited)
Because of flame speed, that heat is released over a much, much longer period of time, leading to an overall much, much lower tempature
Oh, that´s right! I do know! I have worked a lot of construction, generally, as the BOSS, if you understand the word
NEVER ONCE HAD A 55 GAL. DRUM MELT!!!
#37. To: AGAviator, honway (#31)
That is correct. And also, if there were no fires below Floor 6 then this theory is not viable.
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
#38. To: nolu_chan (#37)
#39. To: nolu_chan (#37)
Looking from southwest corner to the south face
Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s
Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed
#40. To: BeAChooser (#32)
Perhaps you are focusing too much on the 5th floor and below as the initiation point for the collapse. There are papers (such as http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf ) that look into the failure and conclude that the failure could have begun well above that (particularly on the 12th floor) and simply spread from there.
#41. To: nolu_chan (#37)
# No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
#42. To: AGAviator, honway (#39)
I believe the south face gash is where Manuel Garcia, who came up with this theory of the collapse, believes the smoke from the burning diesel fuel was exiting the building.
Link
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER;
City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center
By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON
#43. To: AGAviator, Critter, Destro, YertleTurtle (#36)
Because of flame speed,
#44. To: richard9151, AGAviator, Critter, YertleTurtle (#43)
Undistilled crude is EXTREMELY dangerous because it is FULL of many, many different chemicals, including natural gas. And what is in the undistilled crude varies widely from oil field to oil field,
#45. To: richard9151, Destro (#43)
(Edited)
All things are in relationships; for instance, if gas burns in one second, and kerosene in two seconds, tnen kerosene burns half as fast, thus shows a slower flame speed and a slower release of heat.
And that brings up the point, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A DIESEL/KEROSENE LOADED TANKER EXPLODING? Inquiring minds want to know, because I never have.......
IF they used AV gas, they would have more slightly more thrust, but much, much higher tempatures, such that the life of the engines would be severly curtailed.
IF IF IF they could build an engine, at any price, that could stand the tempatures.
First off, concrete does not melt. It will crack and scale, if enough heat is applied, but it don't melt.
You need to consider something; just because some ignorant so- called newsreporter said something about a bridge melting, does not make it fact. The pictures I saw of the bridge certainly had steel sagging down, but I saw no puddles of steel below the bridge... but hey, maybe you know something I do not!
Undistilled crude is EXTREMELY dangerous because it is FULL of many, many different chemicals, including natural gas. And what is in the undistilled crude varies widely from oil field to oil field, but in nearly all cases, except in some cases of very heavy crude, it is flammable with only a spark.
So I would suggest that you look for other types of info, or, read a few books, before you continue to lecture me.
#46. To: richard9151, AGAviator, Critter, Destro, YertleTurtle (#43)
For the record, few in the scientific community doubt that it's theoretically possible for a building to experience failure if it is subjected to devastating heat for a sufficient period of time. And additional factors like no fire-proofing, no sprinkler systems, insufficient steel to "bleed off" heat or inferior construction greatly increase the possibility. However, what is "doubted" (or more accurately; considered downright impossible) is that such a failure would resemble anything like what was witnessed on 9/11. -Gradual, isolated, asymmetrical failures spread out over time; perhaps -simultaneous disintegration of all load bearing columns (leaving a pile of neatly folded rubble a few stories high) -no way.
#47. To: nolu_chan (#46)
(Edited)
1. This was an open air environment where flames were able to reach their absolute maximum temperature; white-hot and shooting upwards of 200 feet in the air.
#48. To: AGAviator, richard9151, Critter, YertleTurtle, honway, Kamala (#3)
Counterpunch: Dark Fire - The Fall of WTC 7 http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html
The Fall of WTC 7
Dark Fire
WTC 7 was mortally wounded. In 5 hours and 21 minutes, it would collapse. This article is a visualization of what probably happened. Only gods and the dead have certainty; we, the living, have rationality and courage to guide us through the puzzles and the perils of life.
#49. To: AGAviator (#47)
1. All "un-offical" accounts of WTC 7 have - up to this time - begun with the statement "No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire."
Link
#50. To: nolu_chan, Destro, YertleTurtle (#49)
The source used to "support" your claim to certainty in what happened admits he is uncertain and his entire article was only speaking of his perceived "probability
This article is a visualization of what probably happened. Only gods and the dead have certainty; we, the living, have rationality and courage to guide us through the puzzles and the perils of life
This argument is demonstrably untrue. A New York Times article of November 29, 2001, stated, "experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire...."
I said All "un-offical" accounts of WTC 7 have - up to this time - begun with the statement "No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire."
This argument is demonstrably untrue. A New York Times article of November 29, 2001, stated, "experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high- rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire...."
#51. To: AGAviator (#47)
1. All "un-offical" accounts of WTC 7 have - up to this time - begun with the statement "No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire."
Enemies of the Republic
#52. To: AGAviator (#50)
#53. To: nolu_chan (#52)
You were being intellectually DIShonest by omitting a link and the qualifying statement.
I put a link on my earlier comments, numbnuts. You are still being intellectually DIShonest. He did not qualify his article by saying he did not have "complete certainty," he said his "article is a visualization of what probably happened."
And you are going to allege you have *complete certainty* that Silverstein said "Pull," which therefore means explosive charges were detonated? Even in the absence of evidence, you are entitled to your unsupported opinion.
I have more evidence than you do. What you -said- was, "All 'un-offical' accounts of WTC 7 have - up to this time - begun with the statement 'No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire.'"
What you said was in response to someone posting a subtitled report from Italian television which is MSM.
Then your quoting it and the NYT are irrelevant to my point. The conspiracy theories all have said - up to this point - that fires don't get hot enough to melt steel and that no steel structures have collapsed due to fire. They've also pooh-pooed Dr. Thomas Eager's contention that load-bearing trusses were weakened by fires in the Twin Towers. Most unofficial accounts refer to steel-framed buildings. As for your BAC- like wordsmithing, ALL the sources were discussing buildings and not bridges.
Buildings and bridges are both load-bearing structures, Bubba. If a fire can bring down a bridge it can bring down a building. I have said I have found no theory, the government theory or any other theory, completely persuasive. There is insufficient evidence available to state with certainty precisely what happened.
Then you can't rule out the possiblity of pressurized fuel lines feeding fires that structurally weakened the building to the point of collapse. Hey Beavis!
#54. To: AGAviator (#53)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc6_pull.wmv 
"... we're getting ready to pull building six."
The intent was to put a line around the buildings, hook it up to the pickup truck of a visiting redneck, and pull the buildings up to midtown. It was a most unfortunate happenstance that each building collapsed in a heap in a manner not unlike a controlled demolition shortly after the decision "to pull it" was made and before the building could be pulled up to midtown where it would have been safe. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema_report.html
#55. To: honway, *9-11* (#0)
Welcome to all foreign readers. Luogocomune is a news commentary site (all in Italian, thus far) featuring a large, separate section on 9/11. In a way, the whole website revolves around the idea that unless that paramount, unacceptable lie called "the 9/11 terrorist attacks" is removed and put into right perspective, the downward spiral towards this new "dark age" of humanity will never stop.
To us "9/11 victims" are not only the 3,000 people that perished on that day, but also some 650,000 civilians killed in Iraq since the invasion began, 100,000 plus Afghans who've met the same fate in their country, more than 3,000 US soldiers sent by "Dick & Rummy" to die under false pretense, and --sadly but truly -- the ever increasing number of first responders who were knowingly sent to their death by an administration that could be defined "criminal" for this one action alone.
It's for them all that we fight.
°°°
Now for some interesting news we wish to share with anyone interested in 9/11 worldwide.
On April 16, 2007, a major Italian network (Canale 5) has aired some conclusive evidence that Building 7 did not collapse on its own, but was deliberately taken down with the use of explosives.
The piece was part of a larger presentation we provided to the network as an update on the ongoing research on 9/11. In particular, we included a clip we had all seen many times before, but possibly never listened to with the full attention it deserved. Here is the 6 min. segment (please ignore yellow subtitles):
[More videos inside]. Yes, we all saw that last clip more than once, but each time we must have stopped at the powerful evidence the blast itself represents, while disregarding the ensuing exchange, which in our opinion represents the final nail in the coffin of the official version on WTC7. Without even the need to discuss Larry's intentionally ambiguous "pull it" statement.
Our presentation was broadcast as a rebuttal to a bunch of accusations leveled on the same channel ...
... by a group of Italian debunkers against the movie "Inganno Globale" (produced by this writer/website), which is possibly the "flagship" for 9/11 Italian truth seekers, being somehow the equivalent to any other major 9/11 movie in English available on the web.
For those who are interested, this is the entire, 42 min. presentation that was aired on Apr. 16th by Italian Canale 5, divided in the following 5 segments:
1 - Intro + Military stand-down.
2 - Pentagon + UA175
3 - WTC7 (the segment you just saw)
4 - Twin Towers + UA93
5 - 2 touching testimonies by W. Rodriguez and David "We were also killed on 9/11" Miller.
The narration is in Italian, all the original interviews are in English. Keeping an eye on the brief summary above each segment, however, may help you grasp the whole thing anyway.
Part 1 - Intro + Military stand-down
a) After a brief intro the 9/11 Commission Report is presented as the equivalent of the infamous Warren Report, in that both Commissions openly refused to look at evidence that would compromise in any way the reconciliation of the Report with the desired, official version. b) The "Pandora's Box" of evidence against the hijackers emerged from the crash site of UA93 -- while the very plane is yet to be found -- is shown as an example of likely fabricated evidence by the FBI. c) Senator Dayton [thanks Eric Hufschmid for the footage] denounces as "lies" the Norad timelines appearing in the Report. d) The very heads of the Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, denounce in a book the Pentagon's "untrue" statements on their failure to act on 9/11. e) Rumsfeld's intercept procedure change order is paired with the illuminating testimony by Robin Hordon (Pilots for 911 Truth), resulting in a possible answer on how the military response could have been thwarted without necessarily involving "thousands of people" in the plot: All it took apparently was for Rummy not to pick up the phone.
Part 2 - Pentagon + UA175
a) Italian debunkers are caught in the act of resorting to the cheapest tricks in order to try and cast some doubt on the critics of the Pentagon's official version. b) A 2002 New York Times article is shown, reporting doubts on the authenticity of Hani Hanjour's "commercial license", while the alleged hijacker is clearly portrayed as someone who "could not fly at all". c) A collection of witnesses seeing a somehow smaller plane at the Pentagon is presented, while the fact that the debunkers seem unable to produce a witness speaking of a "large plane" themselves is underlined. d) Danielle O'Brien's testimony on what looked on their screens like a fighter jet is presented. e) The idea that "all it took for the hijackers to fly those planes right into their targets was to set the auto-pilot systems" is refuted both by the 330 degrees turn by "Hany Hanjour" before hitting the Pentagon -- losing sight of a target you have been so lucky to find in first place? -- and by the testimony of the controller who followed UA175 all the way into New York's harbor, executing maneuvers "you would only see in the movies". While both alleged pilots, as we know, had never flown a jet before in their life. (Nor had the other two, for that matter.)
Part 3 - WTC7
The same segment you saw above, in which: a) Danny Jowenko's opinion on WTC7's collapse is presented ("a controlled demolition"). b) A short clip from "Inganno Globale" follows, showing a side-by-side comparison between controlled demolitions and the World Trade Center collapses. c) A possible solution for the apparent mishap by the BBC on the actual collapse of the "Solomon Brother's Building" is suggested: It was CNN's earlier announcent that might have confused them. d) However, a good explanation for such foreknowledge must be found, especially since e) A testimony from a first responder moves that foreknowledge even further up, "between noon and one o' clock." f) Police is heard clearing the area because "the building is about to blow up." g) A firefighter is heard commenting "We gotta get back, seven is exploding," his collegue responding "I know, I know," right after a powerful blast is heard from the streets nearby.
Part 4 - Twin Towers + United 93
a) Scott Forbes' testimony is presented as a possible answer to the ever-recurring question, "How would it have been possible to place 'tons' of explosives in the Towers with everybody watching?" By doing it exactly "under everyone's eyes," the answer seems to be. b) Debunkers are shown scrambling through the dictionary in their desperate attempt to refute the tons of testimony about "explosions" in the Towers, prior and during the collapses: If you translate "scoppio" ("pop") into English -- they maintain -- you will get "explosion." Therefore it was only "pops" what all those people really heard. [Hey, let's cut them some slack. Someone may even fall for that!] c) The debunkers' statement that "there is no video actually confirming the sound of explosions" is confuted by the very clip [ending with "Seven is exploding"] you saw above. d) The debunkers' statement that "the idea of molten steel is sheer fantasy" is confuted by presenting different clips, including two reports on the "meteorite" now stored at the JFK hangar. e) How most of the crucial information about the true reasons for the Twin Towers' collapses ended up being sealed in court proceedings is revealed. f) The fact that the debunkers avoided confronting the notion that UA93 debris was found as far as eight miles away from the crash site is underlined, while the same fact is presented as definite proof that the plane did not fall in one piece into the infamous, "empty" hole. g) An interesting comment by a former NTSB official suggesting the "Let's Roll" story is but a nice legend -- "Just like the Alamo" -- ends the segment.
Part 5 - 2 Testimonies
a) William Rodriguez testimony confirms, among other things, that underground explosions took place in Tower 1 before the collapse. b) David Miller's condition, which he shares with hundreds of first responders, that "we now live with those buildings in our bodies" confirms, among other things, that the pulverization of the buildings was too fine to be the result of sheer force of gravity (which is the only force acting in a passive, non-induced structural collapse).
A final note: Except maybe for the "seven is exploding" sound bite, there was nothing truly exceptional in the broadcast but the broadcast itself. As the 9/11 web community at large, in fact, it seems at this point we have gathered enough evidence to make a valid case for a new investigation. We suggest researchers worldwide may want to shift some of their energies -- wherever possible -- towards their local media, to possibly achieve what we have luckily managed to achieve here in Italy.
As the times "are a' changing" fast, it may turn out much easier than expected to puncture the mainstream media cover that still protects the official version. After all it's not politics, it's ratings that they care most about, and Rosie O'Donnell has just shown us that once you have those on your side, nothing else truly matters.
Massimo Mazzucco
Note: Luogocomune is truly open to all different political views, and when I say "we," in the article, I refer to a vast majority of registered users, but not necessarily all of them.
If you want more info on the website, or if you want to register in order to leave a comment, please go HERE. Registration is quick and free, and all your personal info is guaranteed to be kept confidential.
We have also opened a new forum for English-speaking users who may want to discuss 9/11-related issues other than Tower7. Please be patient if our responses will not be in perfect English as well.
#56. To: robin (#55)
#57. To: christine (#56)
#58. To: nolu_chan, AGAviator, honway, ALL (#54)
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv
In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull building six." ... "We had to be very careful about how we demolished building six. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc6_pull.wmv
#59. To: robin, ALL (#57)
To us "9/11 victims" are not only the 3,000 people that perished on that day, but also some 650,000 civilians killed in Iraq since the invasion began
#60. To: nolu_chan (#54)
(1) What do you think Silverstein meant when he said, "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it?"
(2)WhatNeverHappened.com
As far as your cut and paste from WhatNeverHappened, those 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel had to have gone somewhere. And at the same time, there was heavy black smoke pouring from the building.
#61. To: BeAChooser, AGAviator, honway, ALL (#58)
At approximately 11:30 a.m., FDNY assigned a Chief Officer to take charge of operations at WTC 7. ... When the Chief Officer in charge of WTC 7 got to Barclay Street and West Broadway, numerous firefighters and officers were coming out of WTC 7.
-- NIST NSTAR 1-8, page 110.According to the FDNY first-person interviews, water was never an issue at WTC 7 since firefighting was never started in the building.
-- NIST NSTAR 1-8, page 110.At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.
-- NIST NSTAR 1-8, page 111. Angry that he had too many floors to clean, Adorno started by setting a fire on the eleventh floor of the north tower, down the hall from Rich Boody's office. He lit it just before midnight on February 13, 1975, inside a closet filled with telephone switching equipment and filing cabinets filled with paper. Another custodian happened to pass by and hear a crackling sound as the fire burned. New York City Fire Department captain Harold Kull soon led his men into what could only be described as a towering inferno. As it happened, the room also held a large supply of alcohol-based duplicating fluid for mimeograph machines; feeding on all the combustibles in the room, the blaze was already out of control.
Con Edison personnel arrived at the scene and consulted with FDNY. They wanted to know if they should cut the power off at the WTC 7 power station. It was decided to leave the power on and not allow Con Edison personnel to enter WTC 7 because it was not safe. The Con Edison personnel also indicated that fuel tanks were located in the lower level of WTC 7. However, they could not determine if the fuel tanks were involved with the fires burning in the building. FDNY personnel reported that they did not see any indication of burning liquid fuels before the building collapsed. No accurate time is available for this event during the operations; however, the sequence of events indicates that it occurred between approximately 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m.
#62. To: AGAviator (#60)
I really have never, ever, seen such a gross inability to place comments into their proper context as with the blithering idiots who assert that right after he expresses concern about a terrible loss of life, he would give a command to destroy a building and put even more lives at risk. It really takes a very special kind of stupid to make that allegation.
According to the FDNY first-person interviews, water was never an issue at WTC 7 since firefighting was never started in the building.
-- NIST NSTAR 1-8, page 110.At approximately 11:30 a.m., FDNY assigned a Chief Officer to take charge of operations at WTC 7. ... When the Chief Officer in charge of WTC 7 got to Barclay Street and West Broadway, numerous firefighters and officers were coming out of WTC 7.
-- NIST NSTAR 1-8, page 110.At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.
-- NIST NSTAR 1-8, page 111.
#63. To: AGAviator (#60)
(Edited)
those 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel had to have gone somewhere. And at the same time, there was heavy black smoke pouring from the building.
Con Edison personnel arrived at the scene and consulted with FDNY. They wanted to know if they should cut the power off at the WTC 7 power station. It was decided to leave the power on and not allow Con Edison personnel to enter WTC 7 because it was not safe. The Con Edison personnel also indicated that fuel tanks were located in the lower level of WTC 7. However, they could not determine if the fuel tanks were involved with the fires burning in the building. FDNY personnel reported that they did not see any indication of burning liquid fuels before the building collapsed. No accurate time is available for this event during the operations; however, the sequence of events indicates that it occurred between approximately 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m.
#64. To: nolu_chan, robin, honway, ALL (#63)
There were no 1100c or 2012F fires or anything near these gas temps in WTC 1,2,7.
#65. To: richard9151 (#35)
#66. To: richard9151 (#43)
I do not have to be a scientist to understand basic facts
#67. To: angle, richard9151, Kamala, nolu_chan (#66)
(Edited)
#68. To: nolu_chan (#62)
You dishonestly omit another important part of Silverstein's statement, which is the FD told him they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire.
#69. To: AGAviator (#68)
Building 7
Building 7 imploded late on 9/11/01. It was not hit by an aircraft.
WTC7 was obviously a controlled demolition.
#70. To: nolu_chan, AGAviator, ALL (#61)
The firefighters were ordered out of WTC-7 at about 11:30 am. When the FDNY Chief Officer for that scene arrived at Barclay and West Broadway, the firefighters were already evacuating the building.
At approximately 11:30 a.m., FDNY assigned a Chief Officer to take charge of operations at WTC 7. ... When the Chief Officer in charge of WTC 7 got to Barclay Street and West Broadway, numerous firefighters and officers were coming out of WTC 7. -- NIST NSTAR 1-8, page 110.
Perhaps by "it", he meant the firefighting effort?
What firefighting effort? Firefighting was never started in building 7.
According to the FDNY first-person interviews, water was never an issue at WTC 7 since firefighting was never started in the building. -- NIST NSTAR 1-8, page 110.
At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7,
"And you also forgot to mention that "pull" isn't a term the demolition industry uses when they take down a structure with explosives as you are asserting. It's used when they literally pull it down."
I accept your assertion that WTC-7 is still standing, it was only destroyed figuratively, but literally it is still there.
"Case in point. They pulled WTC 6 down with cables. There are statements and photos proving it. You knew that, didn't you, NC?"
Right after they said they were going to "pull it," what happened? Did they suspend firefighting efforts or did they drop the building?
"So there is proof that fireman can be "pulled"."
Yeah. The ones in WTC-7 were "pulled" at about 11:30 am.
The building came down at about 5:20 pm, about 6 hours after FDNY had evacuated the building, and about 3 hours after they abandoned the area around the building altogether.
"First, jet fuel is only what started the fires."
Do you have any video of a jet hitting WTC-7?
Do you forget that this is a thread about WTC-7 and you are responding to my post about WTC-7 and the theory of pressurized diesel fuel going to the fifth floor and taking out all the steel beams simultaneously?
"Office buildings like the WTC contain many things that can burn ... and burn very hot."
Right. Typically, office fires in a building such as the WTC towers cause the buildings to collapse.
He lit it just before midnight on February 13, 1975
#71. To: angle, richard99151, ALL (#66)
The BLOviator is not a scientist either. It's a shill posting talking points and distractions/disruptions to the thread. That's its job.
#72. To: BeAChooser (#70)
It states:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf
382 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
383 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
384 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
385 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
386 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2003.
387 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
388 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
389 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
391 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
392 FDNY interview 14, winter 2004.
393 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
394 FDNY Interview 14, winter 2004.
395 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
396 FDNY interview 14, winter 2004.
#73. To: BeAChooser (#70)
At approximately 11:30 a.m., FDNY assigned a Chief Officer to take charge of operations at WTC 7. ... When the Chief Officer in charge of WTC 7 got to Barclay Street and West Broadway, numerous firefighters and officers were coming out of WTC 7. -- NIST NSTAR 1-8, page 110.
WHEN THE CHIEF OFFICER ARRIVED, the firefighters were coming out of the building and he was informed the area needed to be cleared because they thought the building was going to collapse.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf
Analysis of Emergency Responder Operations
382 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
383 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
384 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
385 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
386 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2003.
387 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
#74. To: BeAChooser (#70)
-- NIST NSTAR 1-8, page 110.
#75. To: BeAChooser (#70)
#76. To: BeAChooser (#70)
[nc #61 quoting the NIST report] At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7,
At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. [395], [396] The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf
#77. To: nolu_chan, BeAChooser (#73)
These firefighters indicated that several blocks needed to be cleared around WTC 7 because they thought that the building was going to collapse
#78. To: nolu_chan, AGAviator, ALL (#73)
* The Chief Officer was assigned at 11:30 am.He proceeded immediately to WTC-7.
* At the time of his arrival, shortly after 11:30 am, the firefighters were already evacuating the building.
#79. To: AGAviator (#77)
Interesting, it appears that professional firemen, who get killed regularly by structure failures,
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men" Plato
#80. To: BeAChooser (#78)
You tried to claim that Silverstein had his conversation with the Fire Chief when there was no firefighters in WTC 7 so there were no firefighters to "pull". You did this by implying they were all evacuated from inside the building at 11:30 am. Now you've revised that to "shortly after 11:30". But all Silverstein said was that in "the afternoon" he had his conversation and your own sources indicate that " the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor" sometime between 12:30 and 2 pm ... in the afternoon.
-- James Glanz reporting in the NYT, November 29, 2001, Link
-- Humanitarian Larry Silverstein
#81. To: tom007 (#79)
Professional Firefighters DO NOT usually get killed by fires . Other people do
#82. To: angle (#66)
It's a shill posting talking points
#83. To: richard9151, angle, ALL (#82)
It's a shill posting talking points
Yeah, I caught on. Thanks for the note. I wonder if him and BeAC are posting from the Pentagon, Langley, or some Jewish group in New York..... inquiring minds want to know.....
#84. To: BeAChooser, Minerva (#83)
(Edited)
21. To: Goldi-Lox, Mister D
(#19)
Goldi ... hate to say it but this place is becoming anti-semite central.
#85. To: BeAChooser (#83)
25. To: BeAChooser (#24)
BAC....intelligent discussion with you is a standing joke all over the Internet....
#86. To: BeAChooser (#83)
27. To: GO65, goldi-Lox, all
(#10)
I think the answer is obvious.
#87. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#86)
#88. To: BeAChooser (#87)
#89. To: BeAChooser (#87)
"You don't know that. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence now to suggest Saddam's regime was not only aware that 9/11 was coming ... and the form it was going to take ... but actively aided al-Qaeda in that effort through funding, if nothing else. And you still haven't explained the atta/al-Ani meeting away. You still haven't explained documents that show Saddam's regime was helping train al-Qaeda and that they warned al-Qaeda and afghanistan that they would be attacked after 9/11."
#90. To: BeAChooser (#87)
"President George W. Bush, with friend and ally Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, seem ripe to receive the rewards of perseverance and faith. They've stood together against relentless attacks of opposition partisans and pundits, and sad abandonment by wobbly members of their own parties. Through single-minded tenacity, Bush and Blair are making history in forming the bonds of a three-strand cord, true ''free world'' leaders entwined with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That cord, reinforcing the future of human liberty — should they persevere — will not easily be broken. I'm betting these three faces do finally get carved into some 21st century version of Mount Rushmore."
#91. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#89)
"You don't know that. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence now to suggest Saddam's regime was not only aware that 9/11 was coming ... and the form it was going to take ... but actively aided al-Qaeda in that effort through funding, if nothing else. And you still haven't explained the atta/al-Ani meeting away. You still haven't explained documents that show Saddam's regime was helping train al-Qaeda and that they warned al-Qaeda and afghanistan that they would be attacked after 9/11."
From post #277 in this thread: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=146686&Disp=277&Trace=on#C277
So BAC, why is it nobody but you and the Neocon garbage in the Bush Administration repeats such tired, debunked crap?
You claim you only post facts and the truth, but here we have two instances of lies of convenience by you.
Care to explain yourself?
"There is plenty of circumstantial evidence now to suggest Saddam's regime was not only aware that 9/11 was coming ... and the form it was going to take ... but actively aided al-Qaeda in that effort through funding, if nothing else."
And you still haven't explained the atta/al-Ani meeting away.
You still haven't explained documents that show Saddam's regime was helping train al-Qaeda and that they warned al-Qaeda and afghanistan that they would be attacked after 9/11.
#92. To: BeAChooser (#91)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest