The why of WTC7--Silverstein's blackmail

Originally posted by timeless test

Deputy Chief Hayden, talking about the WTC 7 collapse... "Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to come out"

"We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn't want to lose any more people that day"
www.firehouse.com...

My point exactly. These guys wanted to do their job. They know what they're doing on the squad level.

Why did Hayden have such trouble getting them out? Because they knew it was wrong, and that they could indeed do their job effectively.

The firemen who were doing the actual firefighting didn't want to go. They were pulled back. They all knew that building wasn't going to collapse, because it couldn't, logically.

But it did.

Originally posted by gottago
Why did Hayden have such trouble getting them out? Because they knew it was wrong, and that they could indeed do their job effectively.

I'm SURE you've got a quote to back that up.

If you're making that jump in logic all on your own, then that is a leap worthy of an olympian.

Utter hogwash.

Did you actually read Hayden's account? They surveyed the building early in the day and knew full well it was critically damaged.

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 realised this thing was going to collapse.

www.firehouse.com...

The men didn't want to come out because they were dedicated and absurdly courageous individuals. That's why they have chiefs to give them orders.

Originally posted by gottago
They know what they're doing on the squad level.

And by implication, therefore, Deputy Chief Hayden doesn't. Do please let me know if you ever plan on telling him that to his face, I could sell tickets.



[edit on 13-4-2007 by timeless test]

Originally posted by gottago
My point exactly. These guys wanted to do their job. They know what they're doing on the squad level.

Why did Hayden have such trouble getting them out? Because they knew it was wrong, and that they could indeed do their job effectively.

I think lives are more important than property, but that's just me.

Originally posted by gottago
The firemen who were doing the actual firefighting didn't want to go. They were pulled back. They all knew that building wasn't going to collapse, because it couldn't, logically.

Firefighters aren't engineers. Do you know how educated in physics and structural engineering you have to be to become a firefighter?

Originally posted by timeless test
In fact I've never seen any video which shows the entire collapse down to ground level which would allow that calculation to be made.

Doesn't the blury video that suppossedly shows 7 leaning to the south show the whole collapse or most of it? I thought it did. And I don't feel like looking for it right now.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Fighting fires in a highly dangerous area with the potential for terrorist attacks is not. Remember, everyone was afraid of another terrorist attack at that point. Bridges were closed and everything.

That didn't stop them from fighting the fires in 4, 5 & 6 though? Please explain.

[edit on 4/13/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by timeless test
Utter hogwash.

Did you actually read Hayden's account? They surveyed the building early in the day and knew full well it was critically damaged.

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 realised this thing was going to collapse.

www.firehouse.com...

The men didn't want to come out because they were dedicated and absurdly courageous individuals. That's why they have chiefs to give them orders.

You want utter hogwash? Go read the NIST report. I'll remind you, officially they tried to ignore WTC 7, and there has to date been no decent or convincing investigation of its collapse. Why?

And as for Hayden, is he a structural engineer? Or saying that to give cover?

And even if the one corner that was damaged by falling debris was enough to bring down the whole structure--and here, you're literally swimming in hogwash--that is not going to lead to a straight-down collapse at virtual free-fall speed. It would crimp on that corner and topple to one side; the structural integrity of the entire bldg wouldn't dissolve in an instant, which is what happened. Impossible.

The only point I agree with you on is the courage and dedication of the firemen.

Originally posted by timeless test
In fact I've never seen any video which shows the entire collapse down to ground level which would allow that calculation to be made.

Well here you can watch WTC 7 go down I believe it hit the ground without stalling very much once it disappeared below the buildings in front of it--but hey, you never know...

WTC 7 collapse.

Note Dan Rather's comments. "Amazing, incredible..." and how he says it looks just like those pictures we all know of buildings being dynamited to bring them down. Ditto Peter Jennings.

But that's just mindless talking-head babble, stating the obvious, I know. They had no idea some falling debris could take down a building that size. So ignorant.

Originally posted by gottago
And as for Hayden, is he a structural engineer? Or saying that to give cover?

I'd like to know how a "buldge" on a corner of a building spanning only 3 stories has this fireman convinced that the building is going to implode on itself. Maybe he was told by someone higher up? Maybe. Seems lik a lot of people where "told" the building was comming down. BBC comes to mind.

And even if the one corner that was damaged by falling debris was enough to bring down the whole structure--and here, you're literally swimming in hogwash--that is not going to lead to a straight-down collapse at virtual free-fall speed. It would crimp on that corner and topple to one side; the structural integrity of the entire bldg wouldn't dissolve in an instant, which is what happened. Impossible.

I can't remember how many column lines there were but I know there were more than 2 spanning from south-north. So, that gives us 3 column lines. If the factor of safety was 1.6 (very low considering what that building was...a bunker). That means the total column line's capacity could carry an equivalent of 4.8 column lines. Now, even if the whole south face was sheared off, that's 4.8-1.6 (that's a column line with the FS included), giving us 3.2. Which is higher than the number of column lines needed to begin with. So, IMO there could have been the whole south facade column line gone and it still would have stood.

Now, if we say that the hole was just 20 stories, it becomes slightly different. That would add a moment to the adjacent columns above the damage zone, causing the columns on the north facade to become in tension. Steel is strong in tension, much stronger than concrete. So, when someone says that an airplane hitting a concrete building (causing the columns on the other side to be in tension) would be stronger than a steel building, I say hogwash. So, the steel would be in tension, giving resistance to overturning. But, if the columns do fail, They'd fail in compression most likely. That means the adjacent columns would go first. Causing more moment to the next columns. The Building would eventually topple, at least to more of a degree observed.

Sorry for the rambling, just had to get my thoughts out.
Also, if I have any of my assumptions wrong and someone can prove to me with engineering that I'm wrong, feel free. I'm here to learn, not cling to theories that have been proven wrong.

Originally posted by Griff
I can't remember how many column lines there were but I know there were more than 2 spanning from south-north. So, that gives us 3 column lines. If the factor of safety was 1.6 (very low considering what that building was...a bunker). That means the total column line's capacity could carry an equivalent of 4.8 column lines. Now, even if the whole south face was sheared off, that's 4.8-1.6 (that's a column line with the FS included), giving us 3.2. Which is higher than the number of column lines needed to begin with. So, IMO there could have been the whole south facade column line gone and it still would have stood.

Now, if we say that the hole was just 20 stories, it becomes slightly different. That would add a moment to the adjacent columns above the damage zone, causing the columns on the north facade to become in tension. Steel is strong in tension, much stronger than concrete. So, when someone says that an airplane hitting a concrete building (causing the columns on the other side to be in tension) would be stronger than a steel building, I say hogwash. So, the steel would be in tension, giving resistance to overturning. But, if the columns do fail, They'd fail in compression most likely. That means the adjacent columns would go first. Causing more moment to the next columns. The Building would eventually topple, at least to more of a degree observed.

Griff,

Very interesting analysis; is there a standard means of calculating a safety factor, and is there a minimum value written into the NYC bldg code?

WTC 7 had four columns running n/s. Debris damaged the southwest corner roughly from floors 8 to 18.

I came across these recommendations from the NYC Dept of Buildings to revise the building code in response to 9/11.

Check out particularly the commentary beginning on p. 35; very interesting reading dealing with redundancy and alternate path/load shifting.

What is indeed telling is that all scenarios, even post-9/11, are aimed at preventing progressive collapse. Considering all three towers had total structural collapse, this speaks volumes about just what structural engineers in NYC consider a plausible collapse scenario for a modern steel-frame building--even with a post 9/11 mindset.

[typos]

[edit on 14-4-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by gottago
Very interesting analysis; is there a standard means of calculating a safety factor, and is there a minimum value written into the NYC bldg code?

I believe 1.6 to be the bare minimum. Also, I don't believe the towers were required by law to be built to a certain code. They had to have designed by one though. I have no idea which one they used.

WTC 7 had four columns running n/s. Debris damaged the southwest corner roughly from floors 8 to 18.

I came across these recommendations from the NYC Dept of Buildings to revise the building code in response to 9/11.

I'll look into it.

Edit: Funny thing about the NYC DOB website is that they have deleted mostly all permit applications from viewing from WTC 1, 2 & 7. I've posted info on this before.

[edit on 4/14/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by gottago
You want utter hogwash? Go read the NIST report.

Oh dear. To clarify...

You said "These guys wanted to do their job. They know what they're doing on the squad level.

Why did Hayden have such trouble getting them out? Because they knew it was wrong, and that they could indeed do their job effectively."

...now that is what I meant by utter hogwash.

Hayden, or his team, surveyed WTC 7 and came to the conclusion it was going to collapse and so, to prevent further loss of life he "pulled" his men out of the building. Now I'm guessing that he is not a structural engineer but that he has seen rather more damaged buildings than you or I and that his judgement is rather better then ours, you seem to disagree.

So you are clearly suggesting one of two things. Either,

1. Hayden, (who I think I recall was the highest ranking firefighter to survive the day), is incompetent and pulled his men out when it was unnecessary.

Or,

2. Hayden pulled his men out to allow a CD to take place and was, therefore, complicit in the criminal act of the destruction of WTC 7.

You may wish to have long think about where you are going with this argument, and I'm still wondering if you would have the balls to discuss either of those possibilities with him face to face.



[edit on 14-4-2007 by timeless test]

Originally posted by timeless test
So you are clearly suggesting one of two things. Either,

1. Hayden, (who I think I recall was the highest ranking firefighter to survive the day), is incompetent and pulled his men out when it was unnecessary.
Or,
2. Hayden pulled his men out to allow a CD to take place and was, therefore, complicit in the criminal act of the destruction of WTC 7.

You may wish to have long think about where you are going with this argument, and I'm still wondering if you would have the balls to discuss either of those possibilities with him face to face.

I'll gladly vote for 2, but add he certainly didn't need to be complicit and that he certainly had conversations with higher-ups who in all probability told him what to do and what reasons to give for it. He's a mid-level fish in the feeding chain, following orders, no one to obsess over.

And is it any coincidence that his justification is exactly that given by Silverstein in his now-infamous PBS "pull it" interview? In politics it's called "talking points," "controlling the message" or "the echo chamber."

Let's go back to the beginning. The building fell with all the hallmarks of a CD. TV anchors were amazed and said just that. Out of the mouths of babes...

Even the NYC building code recommendations after 9/11 were to forestall a progressive collapse. I assume you know what that means? That the building would be destabilized and slump or topple. Not drop like a rock straight down. If one of the the major lessons drawn from 9/11 by the city's own structural engineers is that complete collapse is outside of the realm of possibility, that indicates something rather basic about the event.

A modern steel frame high-rise, even assuming that damage from falling debris to one corner of its structure is enough to doom it to collapse, and with intermittent office fires, simply would not collapse in that manner. None have ever collapsed before 9/11, period. So I'm sure there Hayden and I could have a cordial discussion--since you seem so desperately that we meet, presumably from vicarious blood-lust.

And as for your recommendation of deep thoughts, the point of this thread is indeed based on the premise of a CD, and to explore the why and how of that late-in-the-day event, given there was no logic to presetting charges when there was no guarantee the bldg would have been touched when the Towers fell.

[typos]

[edit on 14-4-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by gottago
I'll gladly vote for 2

Excellent. So just to be clear, you are hereby accusing Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, hero of 9/11 and all round good egg of being complicit in criminal acts on that day. Was it just WTC 7 or do you think he was also culpable in the matter of the deaths of 300 of his men in WTC 1 & 2 as well?

I'm sure there Hayden and I could have a cordial discussion--since you seem so desperately that we meet, presumably from vicarious blood-lust.

Nothing so grubby as blood lust, just simple greed. I'm quite sure I could make a fortune from selling tickets to that meeting, heck, I'd settle for the hot dog concession. Also, I'm just fascinated by the idea of a man who put his neck on the line time and again to help others having a cordial discussion with a keyboard warrior who is accusing him of such crimes.

tt,

Oh please. Cut the holier than thou, wrap 'em in the flag you-know-what.

I said he probably wasn't complicit, just a mid-level guy trying to do his job that got his marching orders from above. You make him into Cheney.

Cut and twist is a cheap but vicarious revenge when frustrated, non? Easy to ignore the substance of the post and instead go bottom-fishing.

Awaiting your next salvo,




[edit on 14-4-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by gottago
I said he probably wasn't complicit, just a mid-level guy trying to do his job that got his marching orders from above.

I think you need to look up the meaning of "complicit", that is exactly what you "voted for".

You make him into Cheney.

Ummmm, not me buddy, that was all your own work, which is why I suggested you gave it some careful thought.

Originally posted by timeless test

Originally posted by gottago
I said he probably wasn't complicit, just a mid-level guy trying to do his job that got his marching orders from above.

I think you need to look up the meaning of "complicit", that is exactly what you "voted for".

I find it hard to believe that you honestly believe in, and persist in, such trollery. Read the posted reply and stop trying to distort my answer.

For a refreshing change of pace, how about addressing the substance of the post instead of trying to erect a straw man? It was about WTC 7, remember?

You make him into Cheney.

Ummmm, not me buddy, that was all your own work, which is why I suggested you gave it some careful thought.

Well I for my part suggest you look up the word "satire." And while you're at it, read up on the VP, too.

Originally posted by gottago
For a refreshing change of pace, how about addressing the substance of the post instead of trying to erect a straw man? It was about WTC 7, remember?

If you recall, I responded in some detail to your original premise on the first two pages of this thread. I didn't agree with you and explained why not.

Later, I have responded directly to posts you have made to try to clarify exactly what you were suggesting. No straw man involved, like I said, it was all your own work.

...and yes, perhaps it is a bit cheesy to describe him as a "hero of 9/11" but there are some rare individuals who actually do deserve to be "wrapped in the flag" and I suspect that Chief Hayden may possibly be one of them; if I were an American I would be bloody proud of him.

Originally posted by timeless test

Originally posted by gottago
For a refreshing change of pace, how about addressing the substance of the post instead of trying to erect a straw man? It was about WTC 7, remember?

If you recall, I responded in some detail to your original premise on the first two pages of this thread. I didn't agree with you and explained why not.

Later, I have responded directly to posts you have made to try to clarify exactly what you were suggesting. No straw man involved, like I said, it was all your own work.

...and yes, perhaps it is a bit cheesy to describe him as a "hero of 9/11" but there are some rare individuals who actually do deserve to be "wrapped in the flag" and I suspect that Chief Hayden may possibly be one of them; if I were an American I would be bloody proud of him.

Dude i'm no expert on the matter and i'm studying civil engineering and i can't poke holes in the guys arguement instead of trying to divert everyone from the actual physical facts such as there's no way a modern building like that would of lost all structural integrity as suddenly as WTC 7 did!!! There's qoutes from experts stating this yet people keep diverting it to 'OMG such and such wouldn't of been in on it omfggg it's all lies' etc etc.

It's like seriously dude i would trust scientific fact, mathematical laws and physical laws wayyyyy more than i would of people's account. Because the funny thing is they have no reason to lie but people do.