In this post
, Swampfox claimed the following about WTC 7:
Originally posted by Swampfox
You mention WTC7 and yet do not know that FDNY was saying all afternoon that 7 was going to fall because of the damage it had and that they were not
going to attempt to enter and fight the fires?
When challenged for proof, Swampfox proceeded to post a link to this website
. He cut
out selected witness statements to use as 'evidence' for his claim.
Remember that Swampfox has stated that all claims must have
a chain of custody
while Reheat has stated that all
claims must be proven.
Naturally, I challenged
Swampfox to prove his claim,
using the NIST report. Surely, if WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, then the very thorough NIST investigation should make significant mention of it in
the report - right?
The reply that Swampfox gave
, typically, was one of avoidance. He avoided
showing me where his claim was supported in the NIST report, insisting that he would rather use the eyewitness reports from the day.
I've read through the NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7
and seleted these quotes:
Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building
withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office
combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours.
Here, NIST describe how the damage to WTC 7 was superficial and that the structure was largely sound.
Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11,
NIST ram home their conclusion that it was fire
that caused the collapse. Not fire and
structual damage, as Swampfox would have us
As early as 11:30 a.m., FDNY found that there was no water supplied by the hydrant system to fight the fires that were visible. With the collapse of
the towers fresh in their minds, there was concern that WTC 7 too might collapse, risking the lives of additional firefighters. Within the next two
hours, serious discussions were underway regarding the cessation of any efforts to save WTC 7, and the final order to cease was given at about 2:30
NIST include a reference to some concern that WTC 7 might
collapse, but the reasoning is not included and nor is the statement made with a
degree of certainty. There is no mention of why or how WTC 7 should collapse, if it was going to, nor who expressed the concern.
Who started the rumours that WTC 7 was going to collapse and what factual information did they base the decision upon?
Here's a website that I found a few hours ago, while
Take a look through it. Warning: The ability to read the information on the website will be required. I know that will
discount some people, by virtue of their ignorance.
The short article, written by Graeme MacQueen, questions the source for claims that WTC 7 was leaning and in imminent danger of collapse.
Furthermore, MacQueen disects the unsound arguments made by Ryan Mackey
, who supports a natural collapse. At the very least, MacQueen
the nature of the warnings for an event that was supposed to be natural
MacQueen took a sample of 60 firefighter quotes, analysed them and then tabled his results. Only seven firefighters made the claim that WTC 7 was
going to collapse based on their own judgement. The rest heard from 'others' that WTC 7 was doomed. MacQueen then lists the seven transcripts and
you can read for yourselves how dubious some of them are.
It appears to be somewhat of an urban myth that rapidly spread, about how WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing.
How qualified are firefighters to judge the structual integrity of a damaged building?
Many people might think that firefighters see damaged buildings all of the time and they have classes about how to tackle them. Sure, they do. To
some degree they might be aware of danger signs when inside a damaged building. If that's the case, then why didn't they recognise the danger when
entering WTC 1 and 2? If firefighters were a good judge of structural integrity, then they surely stuffed up when scores of them died in the collapse
of WTC 2.
MacQueen contends that the shock of watching WTC 1 and 2 collapse, might have been enough to alter many firefighters' perceptions about WTC 7.
Please note, I am in no way at all disrespecting any firefighter who lost his life. That's not my intent here. No way. I'm not morbid like that.
The sole intent is truth
WTC 7 is a puzzle to be solved. Swampfox hasn't shown why he belives that WTC 7 was in danger of falling all afternoon. He can only supply witness
statements, and all of them appear to be, uninformed, second-hand information relayed to those particular witnesses.
Firefighters are not structural engineers so their opinion
is as uninformed as anyone else's. In fact, their opinion that it was in danger of
falling all afternoon contradicts the NIST report. Remember that NIST stated the building only suffered superficial damage that would not have caused
collapse. NIST claimed that it was the fires which caused the collapse.
Have at it. I expect thedman to jump in, he's a firey, so we'll surely get some more unverified, second-hand witness statements from his buddies on
the street who watched it fall. Unless they can wave a structural engineering degree, with their real name attached to it, we know how much value we
can place on their observations.
Is the story of WTC 7 leaning and in danger of collapse, just another urban myth, similar to
Lloyde's taxi and light pole story?
(If I've missed anything, then whatever... correct me on it. I was half flicking to the Live F1 Practice Session 2 times when I was typing parts of
this. Mark Webber, you slug - drive faster!)
[edit on 5-6-2009 by tezzajw]