WTC 7 - was it leaning all afternoon and going to collapse - or is it just an urban myth?, page 1

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 27 times

Topic started on 5-6-2009 @ 08:25 AM by tezzajw

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:

Page 39/130
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.

Page 39/130
Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.

NIST ram home their conclusion that it was fire that caused the collapse. Not fire and structual damage, as Swampfox would have us believe.

Page 60/130
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 p.m.

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.

Question: 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 trolling away. 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 questions 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.

Question: 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]

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 08:44 AM by deadline527

In my opinion, if a structure is LEANING before hand, it does NOT collapse straight down. It would fall to whatever side its leaning to.

If you were to knock out just one side of a building, would you expect it to topple over or collapse straight down?

This is the whole reason for demolition. If it was so easy to just knock out a peice of a building to have it collapse into its footprint then there would be no reason to even have controlled demolitions of any building.

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 08:50 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by deadline527
In my opinion, if a structure is LEANING before hand, it does NOT collapse straight down. It would fall to whatever side its leaning to.

Who knows? I don't know how asymmetric damage can manage to cause a symmetric collapse.

To me, it appears that the NIST report may be contradicting some eyewitness reports about WTC 7 or vice-versa.

If, as Swampfox claims, WTC 7 was in danger of falling from structural damage - then why does NIST conclude that it was fire heating Column 79 that caused the sudden collapse?

[edit on 5-6-2009 by tezzajw]

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 08:53 AM by scraze

Such a well mentally articulated post! Nice job

I myself have seen no leaning on footage, but "I wasn't there".

Btw, your quote from NIST:

Page 39/130
Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.

I read: WTC 1 and 2 collapsed due to the same kind of fire as WTC 7 did.
Notice the lack of kerosine in WTC 7..

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 09:02 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by scraze
Notice the lack of kerosine in WTC 7..

Not according to firefighter, Tiernach Cassidy, who is quoted at the end of MacQueen's article.

Cassidy seemed to believe that some of the jet fuel, from WTC 2, managed to find its way into WTC 7. Remember that Cassidy was one of the seven firefighters who deduced, by himself, that WTC 7 was going to come down.

It's an interesting article to read.

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 09:36 AM by scraze

reply to post by tezzajw

Whoops, didn't get that far yet. Yeah, Cassidy seems to say the fire was mainly caused by kerosine, even:

Q. “I wonder what was burning in there. What do you think was burning. There’s not a lot of wood in there.”
A. “You figure, that jet fuel, that explosion that hit, everything just came out. Remember that explosion? It was massive, that fireball. That jet fuel just—“
Q. “It was jet fuel, yeah. That must have been where it landed. That’s probably where a lot of the jet fuel went.”
A. “A 25,000 gallon tank I think it had?”
Q. “It had to go somewhere.”

I wonder though.. How much kerosine can escape an exploding fireball? The explanation is that the explosion 'launched' the kerosine into WTC 7.. How likely is such a thing?
Not only does the kerosine have to accelerate faster than the expansion of the fireball (which would require a shockwave pushing the kerosine outwards - possible, but the kerosine itself should be a source of the shockwave?) - but it would also have to 'collect' in WTC 7 to burn for several extra hours. When you watch the footage of the fireball, it does not seem like there is kerosine splashing around. Maybe some fuel got to escape it's explosion (sounds weird), but if so many ended up in WTC 7, it's bound to be on tape? Just a hypothesis..

Anyway, thanks for the rectification ;] I'll be reading some more in the article, maybe I can find some testimonies of kerosene splashing around.. Gee, I got on a side-track here.

Cheers

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 09:56 AM by uncommon-sense

WTC7 had fuel storage onsite, a 6,000 gallon tank low in the building as well as some smaller ones underground. There were concerns about the safety of this prior to installing them.

link

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 10:00 AM by vehemes terra eternus

reply to post by tezzajw

Solid thread and post Terra, S+ F. Thank you for the links also and keep owning these delusional OS believers.

WTC7 was a controlled demolition, so were the twin towers, IMO. I really hope there is another investigation soon because it certainly warrants one......

Peace

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 12:41 PM by SPreston

Originally posted by scraze
reply to post by tezzajw

Whoops, didn't get that far yet. Yeah, Cassidy seems to say the fire was mainly caused by kerosine, even:

Q. “I wonder what was burning in there. What do you think was burning. There’s not a lot of wood in there.”
A. “You figure, that jet fuel, that explosion that hit, everything just came out. Remember that explosion? It was massive, that fireball. That jet fuel just—“
Q. “It was jet fuel, yeah. That must have been where it landed. That’s probably where a lot of the jet fuel went.”
A. “A 25,000 gallon tank I think it had?”
Q. “It had to go somewhere.”

I wonder though.. How much kerosine can escape an exploding fireball? The explanation is that the explosion 'launched' the kerosine into WTC 7.. How likely is such a thing?
Not only does the kerosine have to accelerate faster than the expansion of the fireball (which would require a shockwave pushing the kerosine outwards - possible, but the kerosine itself should be a source of the shockwave?) - but it would also have to 'collect' in WTC 7 to burn for several extra hours. When you watch the footage of the fireball, it does not seem like there is kerosine splashing around. Maybe some fuel got to escape it's explosion (sounds weird), but if so many ended up in WTC 7, it's bound to be on tape? Just a hypothesis..

WTC 7 is about 700 feet from WTC 2 plus the 208 foot depth of penetration of WTC 2 and interior penetration of WTC 7.

That is a long way for jet fuel to fly through the air especially after traveling through a building. And how would the jet fuel penetrate the supposedly closed windows of WTC 7? It would have been running down the exterior wall. And the jet fuel cloud burning on the east side would have been blocked from WTC 7 by the tower's own mass.

[edit on 6/5/09 by SPreston]

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 12:53 PM by SPreston

posted by uncommon-sense
WTC7 had fuel storage onsite, a 6,000 gallon tank low in the building as well as some smaller ones underground. There were concerns about the safety of this prior to installing them.

That diesel fuel was determined to not play a part. NIST simply states in its new report that the diesel fuel played no role in the destruction of WTC 7.

"However, fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7." (NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii)

Of course you may not believe NIST as they have been proven a very incompetent investigative agency and easily capable of lying.

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 02:12 PM by thedman

reply to post by tezzajw

Quotes from FDNY personnel on scene

The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango graphics8.nytimes.com...

6. 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.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Capt. Chris Boyle /e7bzp

12. At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY

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.

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

Noises coming out of WTC 7, debris falling, visible bulge at SW corner,
building beginning to move and shift

As a personal note - was at seminar 6 months after 9/11 and heard
Chief Hayden describe operations at WTC 7 that day. The use of the
transit to check for building stability and fact that building was starting to
shift several hours before collapse.

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 02:33 PM by bsbray11

WTC 7 - was it leaning all afternoon and going to collapse - or is it just an urban myth?

Total myth. Show me the pictures.

It was a freaking 47 story building standing in the middle of Manhattan. If it were really leaning, show a picture. That's all.

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 02:52 PM by _BoneZ_

Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7

This part is false. Fires were already started in WTC7 (deliberately, I believe) before either tower collapsed:

the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.

It is clear from the following image that WTC7 had mostly superficial damage:

Either way, looking at this image:

You can't say that one of those buildings fell from fire when no steel-structured building has ever collapsed from fire in history. Buildings have only ever fallen like that due to precisely placed explosives, period.

Swampfox was made aware of all of this information already, but he still keeps saying the same things over and over again. Some peoples' denial and their lack of wanting to come to terms with what the evidence suggests, fuels their imagination to make things up to explain away the facts so that they can sleep better at night.

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 04:43 PM by impressme

There is no proof that WTC 7 was leaning this is only a myth created to steer the truth away from demolition. We know it was demolition that brought all the WTC down and swampy knows this. swampfox has been derailing the truth about 911 for years despite the scientific evidences that has been thrown at him he always IGNORES IT!
I have not seen any photos of WTC 7 leaning or a real photo of this huge alleged gash on the WTC7. No, what I see here is swampfox spreading “disinformation.” How I know this is I have research his allegations and found no such evidences, nothing.
I want real evidences, not hearsay anyone can be paid to lie, just look what the FBI did they were paid to lie about every event that happened on 911. Great thread tezzajw S&F.

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 04:59 PM by bigyin

Cassidy seemed to believe that some of the jet fuel, from WTC 2, managed to find its way into WTC 7.

oh I think I wet myself with that one.

Keep taking the tablets pal.

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 05:10 PM by rival

Wow, you guys are ACTUALLY debating the intricacies of the NIST
report. A report we have concluded thru consensus to be
inadequate, incomplete, incompetent, and probably mostly
fabricated.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid,
Just say no....

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 06:05 PM by cpdaman

i would advise all to avoid the thread.....

some people would rather not know wether 9/11 was done with help from the CIA and a few shills on the inside..........

if you would have difficulty i.e to much pain/disbelief in the above then don't bother investing 9/11 it will lead you to be TOOOOOOO BIASED

and all your rationalization will cloud any real debate that is already difficult enough to find

you a 1000x better chance dying from getting in the car and driving to work next year then from any false flag attack or "terrorist attack"

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 06:21 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by thedman
Quotes from FDNY personnel on scene

Noises coming out of WTC 7, debris falling, visible bulge at SW corner,
building beginning to move and shift

thedman, I knew you would find your way here. Perhaps you missed my intent in the OP, I'm not sure.

These witness statements are not proof that WTC 7 was bulging or leaning, etc. They are witness statements.

Where in the official NIST report does it state that WTC 7 was visibly bulging or leaning? It doesn't.

As a personal note - was at seminar 6 months after 9/11 and heard
Chief Hayden describe operations at WTC 7 that day. The use of the
transit to check for building stability and fact that building was starting to
shift several hours before collapse.

Where in the official NIST report is it stated that a transit was used on WTC 7? I might have missed it, so if I did, please link me. If it was leaning enough for a transit, then why was the collapse apparently symmetrical, instead of biased towards the leaning side?

Why did the NIST report neglect to mention that WTC 7 was in danger of falling down? Maybe because it contradicts with their idea that WTC 7 withstood the initial debris impact and was standing fine?

thedman, all you are essentially doing is posting the same uninformed witness reports that Swampfox tried to pass off as being proof.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by tezzajw]

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 08:02 PM by thefreepatriot

a 5 year old can see that wt7 is a controlled demo................ now if that stinks... then what about the rest ?

reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 08:14 PM by thedman

reply to post by tezzajw

Moving the goal posts again?

So what is the problem? The fire ground commander knows that WTC 7 is
badly damaged - he orders a surveyor transit set up and locked on
fixed location on the building. The firemen discovered that the
building was starting to move or creep. This tells them that the structure
is unsound and not to put any men inside. Once the building was discovered to being moving the fireground commanders ordered a collapse
zone around WTC 7 and the area cleared.

I have taken classes on building collapse given by instructors from the FDNY - it cases where buildings structural integrity is questionable
we are taught to look for small signs. Cracks appearing in walls, windows
popping out of frames or breaking from stress. The surveyor transit is
used to determine if, where and by how much building is shifting.

To the idiots demanding pictures - here is video from Steve Spak of WTC 7

www.911myths.com...

Guess what - you will not see the building move because up until the
moment of collapse the movement is fairly small. Offten only matter of
inches as building begins to move from the stress...

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^