WTC-7 North Side MASSIVE Fires .... CBS News

Originally posted by Griff

Griff...

Please please please... lets not get on the Silverstein train!!! I beg of you!!!

the guy said he spoke to the commander. He didn't state the name of the person. Maybe someday he will. Maybe his inflated billionaire ego was puffed up for the camera... really. Maybe he spoke to someoneCan we drop it for this thread?

Thanks dude.

:TY:

EDIT TO ADD:

I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it.

- Chief Nigro

[edit on 25-6-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


Thank you for being a sane voice in amongst the insane chatter. Its obvious to a lay person that fires burning for hours upon hours could bring a building down. I saw a 5 story metal framed apartment building burn once, it took it like 3 hours to complety destroy one half of the building including the collaspse, and most of the time all I ever saw was smoke. You know to be honest there hasnt been a juicy conspiracy theory since JFK and that was getting so old even the loons were getting tired of it...this is just another bone for them to pick up and run with. It just so happens this conspiracy theory does more damage than it will ever do any good. My thoughts are still with all the people that died that day.

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

 

Again you post eyewitnesses saying the building was "fully engulfed". Should I really listen to a fireman who doesn't know what a "fully engulfed" building looks like?

Griff... here is a great write up from a firefighter.....

Of course WTC 7 was not entirely wreathed in flames.

As a firefighter, I've heard buildings described as "fully involved" before which, while they had plenty of fire going, were not actually completely engulfed in flames. Not every description is 100% literally accurate.

What is accurate to say is that WTC 7 suffered from heavy fires on multiple floors as well as obvious and significant (i.e., non-cosmetic) structural damage. The fires shown in the attached image on floors 11 and 12 are "heavy fire". I've never spent that much time on WTC conspiracies, but clearly this is not the corner that had the big chunk taken out. That tells me that either fire spread from the damaged corner all the way through the building, or that some effects of the damage propagated through the building to initiate fire on that side. The same can be seen from the floor 7 fire image above.

FDNY observed heavy fire in the building, on multiple floors. They observed significant structural damage. They observed creaking and groaning noises. They observed, via the use of a transit, the building coming out of line. They had no fire attack going on the building. Building fire suppression systems were damaged and the water supply was compromised. Taken together, these are unambiguous collapse indicators. AFAIK this doesn't mean, from the structural engineer's perspective, that the building must necessarily collapse. But from the firefighter's perspective, it must be expected to do so, and imminently - as indeed accounts from numerous FDNY firefighters showed.

The silly word games about "fully involved" are meaningless and amount to nothing more than casting FUD on the expertise and integrity of real, on-the-scene firefighters by self-appointed experts from the University of Google. Don't indulge them.

ive seen house fires last longer....

the proof well. honestly how much proof you gonna get when most of the actual material from the evidence is gone?....

Yes we have pictures an the endless Phone game of people saying what they saw... But in the end this is about as easy to prove as UFOs on earth... or Ghosts....

You know people get away with murder becuz of " Lack of proof " does it mean they didnt murder anyone? Nahh they just hid all the evidence very well.... Or even Collected all of it an destroyed it... Maybe made it into a Monument...

Originally posted by alienj
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

 

Thank you for being a sane voice in amongst the insane chatter. Its obvious to a lay person that fires burning for hours upon hours could bring a building down. I saw a 5 story metal framed apartment building burn once, it took it like 3 hours to complety destroy one half of the building including the collaspse, and most of the time all I ever saw was smoke. You know to be honest there hasnt been a juicy conspiracy theory since JFK and that was getting so old even the loons were getting tired of it...this is just another bone for them to pick up and run with. It just so happens this conspiracy theory does more damage than it will ever do any good. My thoughts are still with all the people that died that day.

I believe you are a disinfo agent. No person has ever seen a skyscraper collapse due to fire before or after this event. Why? They are designed so that it CANNOT HAPPEN

A couple quick words on your apartment collapse:

Apartment Building: 5 stories; building 7: 47 stories.

A 5 story building: Mostly framed in wood
A 47 story building: Framed exclusively in steel and iron.

Building codes on 5 story buildings to not require fire retardent foaming on all framing. 47 Story building, by law, MUST be coated.

As for your "juicy conspiracy" comment: anyone who follows world events does not need "juicy conspiracies". They are all right out there in the open, if you are studious enough to look for them.

reply to post by Trance Optic




That is a nice comment there man.. Nice one..

And to OP.. This crap has been hashed rehashed and more hashing over and over and over and over again..

There is no point... really...... There isn't..

Why cause nobody can tell us why WTC 7 went down.. If you are so confident in your proof, please enlighten us on why that building fell really... I am dying to know...

Regardless of what amount of fires are present, during the collapse of WTC 7 demolition "squibs" can be seen running up the outside structure, from the ground up!!!

watch the right upper corner in this video...



Also for being fully evolved in fires, this video here shows no such fires at all!


my 2 cents worth...

[edit on 25-6-2008 by theability]

[edit on 25-6-2008 by theability]

[edit on 25-6-2008 by theability]

Originally posted by theability
Regardless of what amount of fires are present, during the collapse of WTC 7 demolition "squibs" can be seen running up the outside structure, from the ground up!!!

are you sure those are "squibs" ?

watch this one..



[edit on 25-6-2008 by pccat]

[edit on 25-6-2008 by pccat]



[Mod Edit - Fix video link]

[edit on 27/6/2008 by Sauron]

sorry seems that the video wont load..RKOWENS4 is the poster of said video..he has a couple about wtc7, at you tube..good explanation of the "squibs"

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by cashlink
Why are you wasting Your time, trying to Fool people?
We have shown you enough proof, explosives brought down WTC7.
Why dont YOU explain how WTC7 fell down, all by it self with out the help of man.

OMG! Really? you have shown me proof!!?

Why show me? You should be heading to CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC,BBC, NATO, the UN... your local authorities..

Why am i so special?

Oh BTW... man did help bring down WTC-7. Actually men.... 19 of them

Pseudoskeptics and Disinformants Is what I see here.

OMG! Really? you have shown me proof!!?

I ask you first, and YOU have failed to prove a thing!

Why show me? You should be heading to CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC,BBC, NATO, the UN... your local authorities..

Where have you been? what News? You call main stream TV News! LOL
They been inform NOT to report on anything outside the Government verision of 911.
It is very clear that our NEWS Bashes and Belittle anyone who even ask any questions about 911.
Or they lose thier jobs.

Why am i so special?

You are "NOT"! and no one said YOU where.

Oh BTW... man did help bring down WTC-7. Actually men.... 19 of them

YA! Thats why 7 of the high jackers are still alive, and some have Sued the Governmen,t for OUT RIGHT LIEING!

Most truth seeker already know this.
I have to ask, are you a Key board Op?

reply to post by pccat

are you sure those are "squibs" ?

...your video Id needs to be edited....


Well for the lack of a better answer, Yes. Flashes of smoke and ejection of high-pressure gases, running up the outside corner supports of a building about to collapse upon its' own footprint would be exactly the definition of a "Demolition Squib'!

Squibs (Initiators) – a small electrically initiated pyrotechnic charge, used to ignite propellant charges or generate gas to drive a mechanical component.

I can sure say this, that wasn't fire running up the side of that building...

Oddly enough, wouldn't those corner joints need to be weakened for the collapse to fall on WTC 7s footprint? Which indeed happened. Then supported with thousands of pictures and mounds of data.

SO we have no evolved fires, suggestions from various people that a planned collapse was indeed taking place. Next you have Video proof of charges running the exterior of the WTC 7 building, then the imminent collapse and fatal flaw of falling upon itself, which no chaotic, fire induced engineering failure would ever be able to have as an end result.

Last, for this it has been rehashed a million times, The only time ever that Steal framed buildings HAS EVER collapsed was on 9/11 ONLY!!!!!

WTC 1
WTC 2
WTC 7

the data does not lie....

Emergency Official Witnessed Dead Bodies In WTC 7
In exclusive video, Barry Jennings discusses explosions in Building 7 before collapse of twin towers.


In reality, what Jennings witnessed completely contradicts the official story of what happened to Building 7.

On the morning of 9/11 in his capacity as Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority, Jennings and Michael Hess, who is a founding Partner and Senior Managing Director of Giuliani Partners LLC, visited the Office of Emergency Management inside Building 7 only to find it had been abandoned.

"Upon arriving into the OEM EOC, we noticed that everybody was gone," said Jennings. "I saw coffee that was on the desk, the smoke was still coming off the coffee, I saw half-eaten sandwiches," he stated, adding that he and Hess were told to leave the building right away.

Jennings and Hess found a stairwell and descended the stairs.

"When we reached the 6th floor the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way, I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and walk back up to the 8th floor," said Jennings.

"The explosion was beneath me....so when the explosion happened it blew us back....both buildings (the twin towers) were still standing," he added.

"I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down - all this time I'm hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time I'm hearing explosions, said Jennings, adding that when firefighters took them down to the lobby it was in "total ruins".

"For me to see what I saw was unbelievable," said Jennings.



The firefighters kept saying to Jennings "do not look down" because, according to Jennings, "we were stepping over people and you can tell when you're stepping over people."

A police officer then told Jennings, "you will have to run because we have reports of more explosions."

"I'm just confused about one thing....why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place - I'm very confused about that - I know what I heard I heard explosions," said Jennings, adding that the explanation that the explosions were as a result of fuel oil tanks in the building did not add up.

"I'm an old boiler guy, if it was a fuel oil tank it would have been one side of the building," he stated.

Footage inside the Millennium Hilton building lobby, which was closer to the WTC twin towers than Building 7, shows minimal damage after both towers had collapsed in comparison with devastating damage in the lobby of WTC 7, as reported by Jennings, before either tower had even collapsed.

Jennings' eyewitness report of explosions inside WTC 7 before the towers had collapsed as well as dead bodies inside the building completely contradicts the official story, which maintains that there were no fatalities inside Building 7.

If WTC 7 collapsed as a result of damage it sustained from the fall of the twin towers, as the official version claims, then why were explosions taking place inside the building before either tower had collapsed?

The BBC hit piece documentary, which airs on July 6th, features an interview with Jennings but according to Loose Change's Jason Bermas, the program will distort Jennings' comments in an attempt to sideline the shocking nature of what he witnessed and the blatant manner in which his experiences contradict the official story.



[edit on 6/25/2008 by cashlink]

reply to post by pccat



I am sorry but after looking into the RKOWENS4 collection it looks already that he states the 911 truthers don't know what they are talking about, because they don't have data and facts supporting them.

May I ask, have you researched this subject? Or hope that all the information you hear or read is accurate?

There are tens upon tens of videos on you tube that go "AFTER" his label of having facts, yet he offers none just like Popular mechanics did in their horrid torment to the journalism society!!

After watching a few of his videos is proof positive that he is attempting misdirection and leeching of minds through the offerings of bogus jargon and nonsense. He flashes images of documentation and pictures of 9/11 with no explanation as to WHY he is showing them, just some random grouping of words followed.

This is why site like this is here, so that you can be outside you normal, (actually you might find the truth too!) so that you can look at different theories and "see where the wolves are in sheep's clothing."

PCCAT I suggest you find the facts from those who know things, Engineers, Chemists, Physicists, etc, before believing a video on youtude is the tell all explanation to debunking the debunker's, as RKOWENS4 states on his profile on youtude so the preservation of the historical facts of 911 can be maintained....

On the mainstream media wanting the world to believe...

Norad Fails
White house Fails
Intelligence Fails
Chemistry Fails
Physics Fails
WTC 1,2 and 7 Fail
Then the Media Fails to offer the truth...

The hijackers Score 75%

But this only happens on 911?? Your kidding me right? You want me to eat this sandwich of 911?


Sorry I'll stick with the data, and the fingers are pointing at an Inside Job.

I have a quote most appropriate for this post....

"In a time of war, the truth is so precious that it will be surrounded by a cloud of lies!!!" -Winston Churchill WWII




[edit on 25-6-2008 by theability]

[edit on 25-6-2008 by theability]

Originally posted by theability
Well for the lack of a better answer, Yes. Flashes of smoke and ejection of high-pressure gases, running up the outside corner supports of a building about to collapse upon its' own footprint would be exactly the definition of a "Demolition Squib'!

As are clearly audible explosions and accompanying flashes firing off in a rapid sequence, none of which are present in any footage of the structure's collapse.

It just falls. No CD.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Griff... here is a great write up from a firefighter.....

And I'm about to rip it apart. Get ready.

Of course WTC 7 was not entirely wreathed in flames.

First admission that the building was not "fully engulfed".

As a firefighter, I've heard buildings described as "fully involved" before which, while they had plenty of fire going, were not actually completely engulfed in flames. Not every description is 100% literally accurate.

Well, as a structural engineer, I've never heard of a building failing like a house of cards until 9/11.

But, his last sentence is about the only part I can agree with.

What is accurate to say is that WTC 7 suffered from heavy fires on multiple floors as well as obvious and significant (i.e., non-cosmetic) structural damage. The fires shown in the attached image on floors 11 and 12 are "heavy fire".

So, "multiple floors" equates to floors 11 and 12? Multiple in my book equates to more than 2. Actually 2 is considered a "couple" of floors. And the damage, to me from video and photographic evidence supports that it was cosmetic as I see NO columns destroyed. You know, the things that actually hold buildings up?

I've never spent that much time on WTC conspiracies, but clearly this is not the corner that had the big chunk taken out. That tells me that either fire spread from the damaged corner all the way through the building, or that some effects of the damage propagated through the building to initiate fire on that side. The same can be seen from the floor 7 fire image above.

OK. So, fire spreads. Does it continue to stay hot enough to collapse buildings all the way through? Wouldn't it have started to collapse from the side it was intense first as it spread? Cooling the burnt parts as it goes? Or does it wait until it gets to the other side to finally make the columns loose strength all at once? Pretty smart fire if you ask me.

FDNY observed heavy fire in the building, on multiple floors.

I've seen heavy fire on 2 floors. Care to back this up with anything more than the same 5 quotes we've been hearing from for 7 years now? Or would we like to quote others that say different?

They observed significant structural damage.

What is significant?

They observed creaking and groaning noises. They observed, via the use of a transit, the building coming out of line. They had no fire attack going on the building. Building fire suppression systems were damaged and the water supply was compromised.

It's funny how I see photos from 9/11 where the firefighters are pouring water on WTC 5 which is only a block away and actually "fully engulfed". But no one wanted to fight WTC 7? Again. Why?

Taken together, these are unambiguous collapse indicators. AFAIK this doesn't mean, from the structural engineer's perspective, that the building must necessarily collapse. But from the firefighter's perspective, it must be expected to do so, and imminently - as indeed accounts from numerous FDNY firefighters showed.

So it's an imminent danger that has ZERO precedence behind it? I'm not talking about just some flimsy ceiling steel bowing and collapsing. I'm talking about real steel.

The silly word games about "fully involved" are meaningless and amount to nothing more than casting FUD on the expertise and integrity of real, on-the-scene firefighters by self-appointed experts from the University of Google. Don't indulge them.

I hate to tell Mr. Firefighter, but I have way more than just internet degrees. I'd like to know what kind of education he has? Other than being a hose monkey?

BTW, pretty sad that you post a post from some yahoo, who all we know could be thedman from jref.

[edit on 6/25/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Kulturcidist


Did you by chance look up a few posts that I posted video on there showing squibs flowing up the right hand corner of building 7, just before WTC 7 collapses!!!!


Here is the link...
youtube.com...


Kulturcidist...if you'd like data, evaluation about video u2u me and I'd be happy to send you some links


[edit on 25-6-2008 by theability]

"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak
A picture is worth a thousand words, as any photographer will tell you.

ThroatYogurt - the eyewitnesses describing the building "completely involved in fire" are contradicted by the photographic evidence. From some vantage point at some time it may have appeared that way to some people, but unless this is some new kind of ghostly fire that does not form an image on film or video, the photographic evidence takes precedence over verbal descriptions.

The last video you posted (which contains the same footage I posted before you) clearly does not show a building completely engulfed in fire. Nor do the others.

We have photos and video from several viewpoints of WTC 7 immediately before it imploded and there is no flame at all visible in any of them. That's not to say there were no fires inside. But... "fully involved in flames" "When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories."? Invisible flames?

Did the all-engulfing fire subside just before the building fell? Without any fire-fighting? And this somehow caused the rapidly cooling massive steel structure to lose its tensile strength and fracture simultaneously from top to bottom?

Thanks to the bizarre BBC premature report we can see from a distance how the fire was progressing 20 minutes earlier. There is absolutely no flame or smoke on the side of the tower in view and it is visible for over 5 minutes.



CNN's equally bizarre premature report gives a clearer view over an hour before the implosion. Do we observe a building "totally involved in flame" or one with no flames visible?



MASSIVE FIRES!
MASSIVE DAMAGE!
Just off-camera.

We have eyewitness testimony about the damage but a similar a lack of photographic support for it. Popular Mechanics "fact checker" Davin Coburn says he's been shown photographic evidence of the real extent of the damage which for some reason he alone was allowed to see but we can't.

But like the title of this thread - it's all an irrelevant digression - a smokescreen.

Fire, small or large does not cause buildings to implode.
Nor do buildings implode because some hours earlier they were hit by parts of another building.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by EvilAxis]

Originally posted by pccat
are you sure those are "squibs" ?

Are you sure those are jets of air from a building collapsing suppossedly from the base?

...That tells me that either fire spread from the damaged corner all the way through the building, or that some effects of the damage propagated through the building to initiate fire on that side. The same can be seen from the floor 7 fire image above.

Just to help dispel the spreading fire myth, again...This is from the FEMA report.

Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was to be filled with fire-stopping material.



A zoned smoke control system was present in WTC 7. This system was designed to pressurize the floors above and below the floor of alarm, and exhaust the floor of alarm to limit smoke and heat spread.

WTC 7 was designed to stop the spread of fire, smoke and heat, and as there were only fires on two floors I would say it worked as advertised. You can't blame planes knocking off fire proofing with this one...

No spray on fire proofing but 2 to 6 inches of fire retardant in between the floor and curtain walls. No jet plane damage or jet fuel,
and no provable damage to load bearing columns. Many buildings with far more debris closer to the towers, and actually really engulfed in fire, didn't collapse.

It should be coming pretty clear by now to anybody that isn't in denial that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The evidence against 'natural collapse' from fire is overwhelming.

I have no idea how they did it, but it's the only logical conclusion.

reply to post by EvilAxis


Ahem what you have to say now after the leaked NIST document?
I am not suprised that debunkers and skeptics are not even talking about this recent event.It blows out your debunking and skeptic response.
www.abovetopsecret.com...