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.
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein
Originally posted by hooper
They decided to let the buildings burn and probably collapse. There may have been evidence from the ground (leaning, bulging, the sound of sections failing) that strongly suggested the latter possibility.
What good would demolishing the WTC7 structure do?
Originally posted by ATH911
Originally posted by hooper
They decided to let the buildings burn and probably collapse. There may have been evidence from the ground (leaning, bulging, the sound of sections failing) that strongly suggested the latter possibility.
Can you provide some photographic evidence that showed the 7 leaning or bulging so bad that it made officials think the building might collapse?
What good would demolishing the WTC7 structure do?
You do admit though that its collapsed looked exactly like a C.D.?
Originally posted by hooper
It was established that there was no one in WTC 7 that needed to be rescued
The building had been struck and severly and overtly damaged by the falling towers, the fires had been burning for hours.
They decided to let the buildings burn and probably collapse.
There may have been evidence from the ground (leaning, bulging, the sound of sections failing) that strongly suggested the latter possibility.
What good would demolishing the WTC7 structure do? It would have to be demolsihed eventually anyway, it could never be used again.
If there were nefarious secrets in the building they would be more likely uncovered in the event of an uncontolled collapse on 9/11 rather than a controlled deconstruction later.
Originally posted by hooper
Hell, I was watching it on TV and I was pretty damn sure it was going to come down.
The building was essentialy a total loss at that point, why compound material loss with further loss of life.
Can you provide some photographic evidence that showed the 7 leaning or bulging so bad that it made officials think the building might collapse?
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years
...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.
www.firehouse.com...
Originally posted by Nutter
Originally posted by hooper
It was established that there was no one in WTC 7 that needed to be rescued
Just how do you establish this without literally going through the building floor-by-floor?
The building had been struck and severly and overtly damaged by the falling towers, the fires had been burning for hours.
Exactly. Yet you state as fact that it was established that no one was left trapped inside.
They decided to let the buildings burn and probably collapse.
No. They decided to let WTC 7 burn and collapse. They saved WTC-5 and WTC-6. Two buildings that were far more damaged and had far worse fires. Why try and save these buildings and not WTC-7 when we learn from NIST that only 9 stories had sporadic fires?
There may have been evidence from the ground (leaning, bulging, the sound of sections failing) that strongly suggested the latter possibility.
Yet they are going to save WTC-6 that was almost completely bombarded with WTC debris that it wasn't even worth saving? Or the same with 5?
Why save 5 & 6 which have far worse damage and far worse fires and don't hold US government secrets? Wouldn't trying to save the less damaged, more important building be the logical thing to do?
What good would demolishing the WTC7 structure do? It would have to be demolsihed eventually anyway, it could never be used again.
Do you mean exactly like 5 & 6? Also, a building as big as WTC-7 wouldn't be allowed to be demolished with explosives in NYC. It would have had to have been demolished piece by expensive piece.
If there were nefarious secrets in the building they would be more likely uncovered in the event of an uncontolled collapse on 9/11 rather than a controlled deconstruction later.
How does that happen when the whole area is cardoned off and becomes a military operational site?
[edit on 27-10-2009 by Nutter]
Originally posted by Nutter
Originally posted by hooper
Hell, I was watching it on TV and I was pretty damn sure it was going to come down.
Because they kept telling you that it was going to come down. Hence the OP.
The building was essentialy a total loss at that point, why compound material loss with further loss of life.
I think I've made my point with 5 & 6, but the same could be asked about these buildings. The buildings were essentially a total loss at that point, why compound material loss with further loss of life?
That day I was at a remote construction site and the only TV we had could get a grainy video but no sound. So I wasn't reacting to anyhing I heard. All you had to do was see that building so well involved in the fire and there wasn't much doubt.
Also, consider that WTC-7 had buildings next to it that might be saved, while 5 & 6, didn't. So why try and save 5 & 6 and not 7?
Originally posted by hooper
Read the interviews with the firefighters. The describe building 7 as "free burning" does that sound like a few localized fires?
Better check your facts on 5 & 6.
Originally posted by hooper
That day I was at a remote construction site and the only TV we had could get a grainy video but no sound.
On May 4 and 5, 1988, the Los Angeles City Fire Department responded to an extinguished the most challenging and difficult high-rise fire in the City's history. The fire destroyed five floors of the First Interstate Bank Building, which some experts say could mean the loss of the entire structure. It was the high-rise fire that "you can't put out."
It took a total of 383 Department members to do the job. They fought the blaze for 3 hours and 39 minutes to knock it down. In the process, they flowed one-half million gallons of water through 10,000 feet of fire hose and literally fought their way onto the fire floors from the hot, crowded, smokey stairwells.
In addition, during the course of the First Interstate Fire, the Los Angeles City Fire Department responded to 87 other incidents which included 74 emergency medical service responses, eight of which were heart attacks; three structure fires; three fires outside of a structure; five false alarms; a lock out' and a natural gas leak.