It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by deltaboy
It fell because of the big gash caused by debris from the North Tower, which many firefighters have confirmed there was damage to the building.
So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to
the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st
Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain
Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade
Center was badly damaged on the south side and
definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we
were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World
Trade Center, which we did.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we�ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: 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.
Originally posted by coughymachine
So, to address the specific point you made earlier and my follow-up: there were three firefighters' accounts and none of them describes the damage in any meaningful detail. Further, it is not possible to establish from these accounts the extent to which the building's structural integrity was compromised, nor the process by which the collapse initiated.
Would that be fair?
If so, on what basis do you assert that the damage sustained during the collapse of WTCs 1 & 2 led to its collapse?
Originally posted by deltaboy
It would be fair to say that WTC7 didn't fall for a reason even though we have no accurate clear information since nobody in his/her mind would do when a building is still on fire.
On the firefighters' fear of its collapse based on their observation in which they knew.
Originally posted by adjay
He can say it as he is a controlled demolitions expert that has looked at the building plans and structure. He makes a living from bringing down buildings in the most economical and safe manner possible, to preserve surrounding structures.
Originally posted by adjay
and your statement that someone using a cell phone could have triggered the charges is an outright falsehood. Please prove this "fact".
Originally posted by totallyhuman
defcon5,
Do you work for the Government?You seem to be trying to throw everybody off with the "Official" story.I am a firefighter and have been for 13 years and we have NEVER said we were going to "pull" a building because the fires were too much to control.Nobody says anything at all.If firefighters are in the building and the building looks like it might be ready to collapse or something they "laydown" on the airhorn for 1 long blast.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
Where I come from fire chiefs never consult with building owners like the oh so brainy Larry Silverstein in order to decide what to do about a building fire. Up here the fire chief tells you to get your fat butt out of the way. I guess things are different down in New York city.
Originally posted by Jeff Riff
if building 7 fell due to fire and damage then why didnt the Marriott Hotel do the same?
perhaps because the people that reside in that building have nothing to hide.
Originally posted by coughymachine
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Could you clarify please?
I guess it'll come as no surprise for you to learn this proves absolutely nothing to me and the vast majority of those who take this issue seriously.
Originally posted by deltaboy
No one is in his/her right mind would try to analyze the building in person for accurate assessment while its on fire.
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.
Then just pretend I'm like a truther that says it was a demolition because it looked like one.
Originally posted by coughymachine
So the best damage assessment you could produce was from firefighters outside the building who describe some external but unspecified damage. Yet there were a number of people inside the building assessing the extent of the fires and ensuring the building had been vacated who, to my knowledge, reported no severe internal traume despite being in the very best position to have done so.
Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by ipsedixit
Where I come from fire chiefs never consult with building owners like the oh so brainy Larry Silverstein in order to decide what to do about a building fire. Up here the fire chief tells you to get your fat butt out of the way. I guess things are different down in New York city.
Or it could be that this was the first time in history that a major chunk of an entire city fire department was killed in one single event. With this in mind they could have continued to fight the fire, or disperse their men to deal with other pressing matters. So there was a decision there to be made, whether it was worth keeping the manpower bottled up fighting a fire at one location, or if the owner felt that the damage was such that it was not worth the effort and they could recommit their men to other matters.
Originally posted by deltaboy
The best damage assessment you just provided...
Originally posted by coughymachine
Just so we're clear - it's not encumbent upon me to provide evidence of anything here.
You made the claim that damage brought the buildings down. I asked you to substantiate this claim. You have, unless I've missed something, failed to do so on several occasions now.
Do you have anything to offer by way of specific evidence about the extent to which the structural integrity of Building 7 was compromised and how this led to the initiation of the collapse?
If not, would you be good enough to concede that your claim was, at best, a gut feeling?
Originally posted by deltaboy
Gut feeling? Nah, just enough evidence like firefighters' reports and the visual damage shown.
Originally posted by defcon5
Unfortunately the structure was not in the same condition that it was in the blueprints at the time that it collapsed, it was highly damaged. So saying that he compared the situation to a set of blueprints is not going to tell how close the building was to collapse. I find it very difficult to believe that a professional would stick his neck out and make such a remark when he was not present to view the condition of the build at the point which the fire department made the decision to give up.
Originally posted by defcon5
It is normally posted around blasting sites that you cannot use a cell phone in the area. This is due to the fact that cell phones are not Intrinsically safe devices. They emit a strong RF signal that can cause induction in nearby wiring. This is the same thing that happens when you hear your cell phone make odd noises in your radio speakers.