WTC fires that burned for 100 days

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CameronFox
What time did he call Larry? I don't know. It was before 4pm, thats all I know. No matter, because the time Chief Nigro called Silverstien is IMO irrelevant.

PULL is a term that means to bring down a building. There are lots of ways to bring down a building. Fire rescue units have the knowledge and equipment to cut beams.

Yes the time of of the call is important if it was timmed to the builidng collapse and how long the firemen had been pulled out of the building.

The problem is, there was NO manual firefighting operations going on within WTC7 since 11:30 am (I believe - check the FEMA report for an exact time, I dont have the time to do so right now). The timestamps are very important simply because if there was a phonecall or decision made by Silverstein for the building to come down, and that was following the end of manual firefighting operations within the building, then why would Silverstein mean that he wanted to pull the firefighters from the building? (which is his rebuttal to the truth movement regarding that quote)

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CameronFox
What time did he call Larry? I don't know. It was before 4pm, thats all I know. No matter, because the time Chief Nigro called Silverstien is IMO irrelevant.

PULL is a term that means to bring down a building. There are lots of ways to bring down a building. Fire rescue units have the knowledge and equipment to cut beams.

Yes the time of of the call is important if it was timmed to the builidng collapse and how long the firemen had been pulled out of the building.

I wont argue the PULL point. It is a term used when using CABLES as stated by Protech. You find me ONE CD expert that has used this term for an explosive demolition. Protec, the largest CD experts in the WORLD have never heard it.

So Ultima...did you actually READ the last post?? Please explain how Silverstein had ANYTHING to do with it?!

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMP
The problem is, there was NO manual firefighting operations going on within WTC7 since 11:30 am (I believe - check the FEMA report for an exact time, I dont have the time to do so right now). The timestamps are very important simply because if there was a phonecall or decision made by Silverstein for the building to come down, and that was following the end of manual firefighting operations within the building, then why would Silverstein mean that he wanted to pull the firefighters from the building? (which is his rebuttal to the truth movement regarding that quote)

What the heck... is anyone listening??? Silverstein did not make the decision... It was Chief of Operation Nigro that made the decision. The FDNY does NOT have the authority to BLOW UP a building. A building owner does NOT have ANY authority over the operations of the fighting of a fire.
To suggest Silverstein had explosives in his building also suggests that Chief Nigro should be implicated as well since he is the one that gave the orders to set up the collapse zone.,,. Now...think about it. Chief Nigro gave the orders, but he wasnt SUPPOSED to be in charge.


truth,do you have a link to that section of the FEMA report?

double post AGAIN...sorry

[edit on 11-1-2007 by CameronFox]

In regards to the "pull it" comment. Silverstein made his millions by buying buildings and demolishing them. He did not make them by being a firefighter. So, what do you think Larry's exposure to the term "pull it" would be? Would it be to demolish a building or to pull firefighting operations? I would say he would be more familiar with the demolition term pull than the firefighting term. Just MO.

Originally posted by CameronFox
A building owner does NOT have ANY authority over the operations of the fighting of a fire.

So, why was Silverstein even involved or notified in the first place?

Originally posted by CameronFox

truth,do you have a link to that section of the FEMA report?

Page 21 of 32:

"In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activites"

Page 23 of 32:

"It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effetive due to the limited water on site, and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day."

Page 24 of 32 (The "Blunt Smoking Gun"):

"5.6 - 5.6.1 Probable Collapse Initiation Events - WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary inidications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."

Source: FEMA Report Chapter 5 - WTC 7

Originally posted by Griff
In regards to the "pull it" comment. Silverstein made his millions by buying buildings and demolishing them. He did not make them by being a firefighter. So, what do you think Larry's exposure to the term "pull it" would be? Would it be to demolish a building or to pull firefighting operations? I would say he would be more familiar with the demolition term pull than the firefighting term. Just MO.

Honestly ....say he DID know the term... it does NOT mean by explosives!!

READ the quote.... THEY decided to ...THEY ... not him!

Please provide me some sources that show Silverstein was involved in controlled demolitions of some of his properties in the past. I am not saying he didn't, Id just like to see where..when..why...etc...

So, why was Silverstein even involved or notified in the first place?

The man owned the skyscraper....I would think it was a common courtesy to let the guy know his building was going to probably collapse.

Originally posted by CameronFox
The man owned the skyscraper....I would think it was a common courtesy to let the guy know his building was going to probably collapse.

So, you are saying that in all the confusion, the fire department chief thought it best to call the building owner to see if he should pull his fighters back? I find that really hard to believe.

Silverstein says that he said to the fire chief that "we've lost enough life that the best thing to do would be to pull it." That in my mind means that Silverstein is the one to suggest pulling, not the fire department. The fire department made the decision to pull AFTER Silverstein suggested it. So, yes, it WAS Silversteins decision to pull, not Nigro's.

Edit: Here's the quote:

"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." –Larry Silverstein

You can clearly see that Silverstein is the one to suggest pulling. Then THEY (fire department) made the decision to pull. It was still Larry's suggestion (at least according to him).

[edit on 1/11/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMP

Originally posted by CameronFox

truth,do you have a link to that section of the FEMA report?

Page 21 of 32:

"In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activites"

Page 23 of 32:

"It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effetive due to the limited water on site, and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day."

Page 24 of 32 (The "Blunt Smoking Gun"):

"5.6 - 5.6.1 Probable Collapse Initiation Events - WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary inidications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."

Source: FEMA Report Chapter 5 - WTC 7

This is just a quick re-post for CameronFox incase he missed it as he posted the same time I posted this response and may have bypassed it. Sorry MODs, don't get mad.

Although not a direct quote of him demolishing buildings.

During the 1980s Silverstein Properties acquired a major amount of space in a neglected area of midtown, occupied by warehouses and parking lots, west of the developed part of West 42nd Street and north of the new Javits Convention Center on West 34th Street. The slump in business activity, a necessary rezoning, and a subsequent lawsuit prevented Silverstein from developing this tract until 1999, when the company began construction of a $400 million, 1,700-unit rental residential project encompassing the entire block bounded by West 41st and 42nd streets and 11th and 12th avenues, just east of the West Side Highway and the Hudson River. Silverstein moved ahead on this project in the face of opposition by both the city and state, which for a time denied him tax-exempt financing because they wanted the site for an expansion of the convention center.

Sorce: www.fundinguniverse.com...

In that quote, it says he developed on property that already consisted of warehouses and parking lots. I would assume that to do any type of developement, he would have to demolish the warehouses. It's hard to find any mention of Silverstein along with demolition on the net. All that comes up are sites about 9/11. If I find more, I'll post.

Let me reiterate the "PULL IT" term.

Brent Blanchard from Protec and Implosion World. Has stated....

We have never once 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 WTC6 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 WTC7, and the structure did not collapse
in that manner anyway. In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers,including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction
and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pull-down of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring simultaneously throughout the site.

/z6zyc

There were firefighters there.....And please...notice how many times the word PULL is used

7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't
just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. –Firefighter Kevin Howe
graphics8.nytimes.com...


Firehouse Magazine: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the
collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was
remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.


Q. It was on fire, correct, Captain?
A. Yes, it was on fire at that time. Then they said it suffered some form of structural damage. These
things were going on at the same time. The fact that we thought we found Ganci and Feehan and
his place at 7 World Trade Center. Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units
and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you
could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way. –Captain Ray Goldbach
graphics8.nytimes.com...
So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all,
but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building,
with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But
they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually
they pulled back too. – Capt. Chris Boyle /e7bzp
Someone gave a Mayday. I guess it was someone trapped under one of the pedestrian bridges. We started to go under there to look. One of the Chiefs pulled us out of there. He said don't go under
there. ..We searched that building and then we started making another move in and we got pulled out again, because I guess the Chiefs were getting more in control of the situation. They pulled
everybody out of there. ...that was probably like four or five o'clock before we stopped. –
Firefighter Todd Fredrickson
graphics8.nytimes.com...

Then approximately I guess maybe two hours before number 7 came down, we went into Ground
Zero and helped dig around and was there when they located Chief Feehan and one of the chiefs
pulled us all out because they said 7 was going to come down. –Firefighter Kevin Quinn
graphics8.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by Griff
So, you are saying that in all the confusion, the fire department chief thought it best to call the building owner to see if he should pull his fighters back? I find that really hard to believe.

you find THAT hard to believe...but what you DONT find hard to believe...is that a Fire Chief who just saw his boss crushed in tons of rubble...decides he better call the owner of the WTC7 and ASK him what to do? THEN, the owner tells him to blow up the building. SO the newly appointed Chief gives the order to clear a collapse zone do they can blow up the building.

Silverstein says that he said to the fire chief that "we've lost enough life that the best thing to do would be to pull it." That in my mind means that Silverstein is the one to suggest pulling, not the fire department. The fire department made the decision to pull AFTER Silverstein suggested it. So, yes, it WAS Silversteins decision to pull, not Nigro's.

Griff...you and I both know you are specualting 100% Silverstein said "THEY" not : "us" or "me" ...THEY!

Edit: Here's the quote:

"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." –Larry Silverstein

You can clearly see that Silverstein is the one to suggest pulling. Then THEY (fire department) made the decision to pull. It was still Larry's suggestion (at least according to him).

Griff...what you JUST proved is how the manipulation of a couple words can CHANGE the meaning....You posted TWO DIFFERENT quotes

Silverstein says that he said to the fire chief that "we've lost enough life that the best thing to do would be to pull it."

That is not accurate...as you posted the REAL quote in an edit

"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." –Larry Silverstein

TRUTH ...

Thank you for the FEMA report. I will have to find out what FEMA meant by "manual operation". I posted several quotes of firefighters that were at WTC7.... I don't want to speculate TOO much...but there were some (be that minimal) fire operations at the time.( up until about 2 hours prior to collapse)

FEMA's preliminary investigations sucked so bad...probably why NIST got involved.

Originally posted by CameronFox
you find THAT hard to believe...but what you DONT find hard to believe...is that a Fire Chief who just saw his boss crushed in tons of rubble...decides he better call the owner of the WTC7 and ASK him what to do? THEN, the owner tells him to blow up the building. SO the newly appointed Chief gives the order to clear a collapse zone do they can blow up the building.

I don't know what I believe in regards to this quote. As I've said in other threads, I think Silverstein was indulging himself in the PBS interview to make himself look more important. What I do believe is that the fire chief called him to tell him that he was going to pull his men out but Silverstein wanted the public to think he was the one who decided to pull the men out. Just my opinion.

As far as me arguing about pull it as a demolition term, I am just playing devils advocate because like you I feel it was probably in reference to the firefighters. I just like to debate on both sides. It opens up the mind to different ways of thinking.

Griff...what you JUST proved is how the manipulation of a couple words can CHANGE the meaning....You posted TWO DIFFERENT quotes

Which is why I wanted to put the real quote, as not to misquote him. The reason I put quotation marks is so other people knew it was a summation of what he said. I guess putting quotation marks around my summation wasn't the right way to post it.

That is not accurate...as you posted the REAL quote in an edit

Why do you feel the need to reiterate yourself? You've already said that my version of the quote was wrong. Why the need to point it out twice?

Originally posted by CameronFox

Then they said it suffered some form of structural damage.

one of the chiefs
pulled us all out because they said 7 was going to come down.

I put the external tags in for you. Anyway, I'd like to know who "they" were. They said it suffered some form of structural damage? I thought he was there? Couldn't he see the damage himself? Also, if no one was in the building, how did "they" know the extent of the structural damage?

Also, the second quote to me sounds like "they" were the fire chiefs. How did the firechiefs know that "7 was going to come down"? Are they fortune tellers?

I'm going a little off topic here but I want to ask you a question CameronFox. I was browsing your post history and noticed that at least 99.99% of your posts are from something regarding 9/11. Why the obsession with "debunking" every single post about 9/11? Looks a little fishy to me why someone would come to this site just to debunk 9/11 theories?

Originally posted by Griff
I'm going a little off topic here but I want to ask you a question CameronFox. I was browsing your post history and noticed that at least 99.99% of your posts are from something regarding 9/11. Why the obsession with "debunking" every single post about 9/11? Looks a little fishy to me why someone would come to this site just to debunk 9/11 theories?

Actually I came in as a "Truth Seeker"....not a debunker. Although I feel both sides want the truth.

I have stated in many posts that I think the pressure should be on Bush as to find out what he KNEW...and DIDN'T do. Not the accusations of what CTers claim he DID DO.

Is it an obsession? Nah...more like a hobby. I like reading all the different information that is posted. There are quite a few intelligent people in here that I enjoy talking with.

If i see lies ...or false information, i like to point it out.

Lets face it...if everyone agreed on this Forum...it would be damn boring.

Originally posted by Griff
I put the external tags in for you. Anyway, I'd like to know who "they" were. They said it suffered some form of structural damage? I thought he was there? Couldn't he see the damage himself? Also, if no one was in the building, how did "they" know the extent of the structural damage?

Also, the second quote to me sounds like "they" were the fire chiefs. How did the firechiefs know that "7 was going to come down"? Are they fortune tellers?

I never said noone was in the building...the structural damage was seen from the outside....

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all,
but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building,
with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But
they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually
they pulled back too. – Capt. Chris Boyle /e7bzp

They put another engine company in there which augmented us. And the stream was even good
enough to almost reach Tower 7. And then what happened was, we heard this rumbling sound and
my father pulled us all back and then with that Tower 7 came down. –Firefighter Peter Blaich
www.firehouse.com...

...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak
and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came
down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
graphics8.nytimes.com...

Griff.. Truth... these are just a few more quotes from firefighters that day. What I have found was that ... many of the truth seekers sites talk about "small fires"... and controlled demolition... I have not read any quotes (yet) where the firefighters are claiming that the fires were small prior to the collapse or that they heard explosions prior to collapse.

You may say...well it was chaos...etc...but in reality...there were I believe hundreds of firefighters standing around waiting...to see if 7 goes down. The search and rescue efforts for that area were suspended for the fear of WTC7 collapsing. Good thing though..not one person died during the collapse.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Actually I came in as a "Truth Seeker"....not a debunker. Although I feel both sides want the truth.

I have stated in many posts that I think the pressure should be on Bush as to find out what he KNEW...and DIDN'T do. Not the accusations of what CTers claim he DID DO.

Is it an obsession? Nah...more like a hobby. I like reading all the different information that is posted. There are quite a few intelligent people in here that I enjoy talking with.

If i see lies ...or false information, i like to point it out.

Lets face it...if everyone agreed on this Forum...it would be damn boring.

That makes sense. Also, I was thinking about it after I posted that. You've said before that your brother was part of the cleanup. I guess I'd be a little more interested in this stuff myself if I had a family member involved. Sorry if it sounded like I was accussing you of anything. It was really just a question.