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 Pilgrum
Where does the 'pull it' thing fit into that timescale - was it at about 2PM or 3:30PM?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well since we have the statement from Chief Nigro that he evacuated the firemen from the buidling early in the day WITHOUT talking to anyone we know the phone call to Silverstein was made AFTER the firemen were evacuated. So the PULL IT statement could not have meant to pull out the firemen since they were already out of the building.
The phone call had to be around 3:30 PM according to the fire chiefs timelines.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
He could still have been referring to pulling those searchers out of the declared collapse zone, being assured that all citizens had been directed out of there already by the searchers reporting back to him.
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
That insured everyone was away from the building when it succumbed to the fire damage.
Too bad i have already shown several steel buildings with longer fires and more structural damage then building 7 and DID NOT collapse. No steel building has ever collapsed from fire no matter how severe.
You must not have seen the video of the workers coming out of the saftey zone from buidling 7 stating that the buidling is coming down?
I guess you do not do research or you would have found that fire marshalls and fire chiefs do have authority to demo a building.
Also if there was so much damage to one side as the official story states the buidling would have collasped to that side and not straight down starting in the middle as the videos all show.
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
If no steel building has ever collapsed from fire no matter how severe, then why did the fire dept have to "pull it" (as you say)? There would be no need to "pull it". They could just let it burn out.
Yes, everyone has seen videos of workers leaving the WTC7 area. This is because they were pulling the people out of the area, because the building was going to collapse due to the severe damage.
If you bothered to do any research on the construction of the WTC7 building, you would know why it collapsed like it did.
Please read the quotes from Chief Hayden about the possible fire jumping to other buildings and causing more damage if it collapsed on its own.
Please explain then why all the beleivere like you keep making such a big deal of the damage done to the side to explain why the buidling collapsed?
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I asked for you to show us an example of where the fire dept has demo'd a 20+ story building due to being unable to fight the fires. You have not, which leads us to believe they never have done that.
Originally posted by gavron
Also, wouldn't the firemen be praised for doing that then? Risking their lives to go into a burning building, and causing it to come down in a controlled fashion, with such short notice? Why would they need to cover anything like that up?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well for 1 we do not know it was firemen that went in the building it could have been demo crews.
Also from all the photos of buidling 7 there can be no fire seen on the lower floors.
As stated by the EPA that recovered all the fuel from the ground floot tanks there was probably no fire on the ground floor.
Originally posted by gavron
Did the fire dept or demo teams then put charges on only the lower floors?
Originally posted by gavron
However, I've been searching, and can find no examples of where a 20+ story building was brought down while there was still a fire raging in it.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But you would agree that Fire Marshalls and Fire Chiefs do have the authority to demo a buidling, specailly in a emergency?
Originally posted by gavron
Can you show me any case where that has happened? Maybe I'm not doing proper research to find that. Trying to find that data, but it doesnt seem to exist.