Chief Hayden

Kindly supplied by Remisne from another thread.

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.

If this quote is correct then Hayden must be in on the conspiracy.

He must be lying about his fears of imminent collapse, because from the small office fires how could he have surmised that the building would fall? And why would he pull back his men if he didn't have prior knowledge of the demolition? As has been "proved" elsewhere, nobody could have thought the building was going to come down unless they knew about the explosives.

So should the TM be investigating this man, trying to get him to crack? This could be the weak point of the whole inside job!

Well lets look at the facts.

1. Chief Hayden did not decide to evacuate the firemen, he was ordered by Chief Nigro (before talking to the owner Silverstein) to evacuate the building.

2. Chief Hayden also was worried about fires spreading to other buildings.

3. The video of hard hat workers comming out of safety zone stating the building is going to blow up.





[edit on 6-4-2010 by REMISNE]

I said nothing of the sort on this matter or did i?

I had the experience of listening to Chief Hayden describe his actions
on 9/11 at a seminar in Feb 2002.

Maybe some of the truthers here should have had the same experience

Originally posted by REMISNE
he was ordered by Chief Nigro (before talking to the owner Silverstein) to evacuate the building.

Uh:

Chief Daniel Nigro:

"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."

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Chief Daniel Nigro:

"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."

So i guess then that means more lies from the official story, that Silverstein was lying when he stated he talked to the fire commander who at the time of the phone call was Chief Nigro.



[edit on 7-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by thedman
Maybe some of the truthers here should have had the same experience

So are you saying he lied in his statements to Firehouse magazine?

Here is Chief Hayden describing when found out the WTC 7 was going to collapse

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden of the New York Fire Department will later recall: “We had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor, and see if there was any movement of, [WTC 7]. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?” The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. As Hayden will continue: “And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’” Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer. (BBC 7/6/2008) WTC 7 will collapse at about 5:20 p.m. (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001), indicating that the engineer makes his prediction around midday or shortly after. (CNN 9/12/2001)

Originally posted by thedman

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden of the New York Fire Department will later recall: “We had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor, and see if there was any movement of, [WTC 7]. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?” The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. As Hayden will continue: “And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’” Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer. (BBC 7/6/2008) WTC 7 will collapse at about 5:20 p.m. (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001), indicating that the engineer makes his prediction around midday or shortly after. (CNN 9/12/2001)

Yeah, after reading that, you have piqued my curiosity.

He could certainly have been "compromised," and knew more about the situation than he was letting on. For example, this nameless "engineer" story could just be a slight re-working of an actual experience with a federal agent from WTC7 telling him they had the building pre-wired to protect secure information and that the building would be brought down and he would be sworn to secrecy about it. No more, no less. Or there could be thousands of other scenarios like this that could have taken place.

I'm not saying any of them did, or that there is even any evidence of any of this, but that it would definitely be a lead that would interest me personally for an investigative body with subpoena power, and if the name of the "engineer" were revealed then maybe we can even get that much further with what specifically was said and what knowledge it was based on. NIST claimed WTC7 fell from a completely new and unprecedented phenomenon that day. And I know for a damned fact that no one has reconciled or can reconcile the falling body's necessary loss of kinetic energy with its acceleration curve.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by REMISNE


Actually Silverstein said he talked to a "fire department commander" and considering that probably every fire department officer in the FDNY was on site that day, it could of been any one of them.

As per usual, much ado about nothing.

reply to post by bsbray11


Hearing from feds that building rigged for destruction?

How about you get real.......


By noon damage assessments had revealed the extent of the destruction

Nist notes that: "Heavy debris (exterior panels from WTC 1) seen on Vesey Street and the WTC 7 promenade structure at the third floor level. Southwest corner damage extends over Floors 8 to 18. Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least five to 10 floors." However, the full extent and details of this damage are obscured by large amounts of smoke. (Nist interim report on WTC 7. Appendix L)

Around 1230 Deputy Director of the OEM, Richard Rotanz has to make an assessment on the damage to WTC 7. On the exterior he sees the upper 10-15 floors of Tower 7 on fire. "The skin of the building or the outside skirt of the building was taken out,¿ he says. "You see columns gone. You see floors damaged and you see heavy black smoke and fire."

He then enters the WTC 7. "At the time the building wasn't safe but we had to make an assessment, just the same, and we didn't spend that long. You could hear the building creak above us, you could hear things fall, you could hear the fire burning. You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us.

"There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall. This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."

The FDNY had ben preparing to make a run at WTC 7 to control the fires

But extent of the damage made them reconsider......

Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

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.

It was then that surveyor transit was set up to watch the building

By 2-2:30 could see building was "moving" or twisting out of plumb and that collapse was probable

Decision was made to set up collapse zone and clear the area

Originally posted by thedman

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden of the New York Fire Department will later recall: The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer.

Now that is very interesting! Why oh why, if there's nothing to hide, would he not reveal the name of the engineer. You can't just go around saying that somebody predicted that a steel-structured highrise was going to collapse without giving that somebody's name. That is highly suspicious. Especially when that particular somebody predicted the collapse and the approximate time when no steel-structured highrise has ever collapsed from fires before in our entire history.

I may just end up contacting Mr. Hayden myself for my documentary to see if he will release the name of this engineer after all these years.

reply to post by thedman


I don't care how much un-photographed damage there was. It wasn't enough to cause it to free-fall into itself. End of story. There was absolutely no precedent for that and so no way to predict it off of past events. There WERE no occurrences like this before!

People getting this kind of foreknowledge absolutely reeks of prior knowledge of an implosion of that building. The physics of free-fall acceleration and energy conservation are indisputable. Who was told what, and what it was based on, IS disputable.

Originally posted by bsbray11

There was absolutely no precedent for that and so no way to predict it off of past events.

That he was correct proves that the engineer in question is better informed than you about what can cause a steel framed building to collapse.

There WERE no occurrences like this before!

Standard truther canard:

Nothing can happen if it hasn't happened before.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
That he was correct proves that the engineer in question is better informed than you about what can cause a steel framed building to collapse.

Actually, it proves no such thing, since this is hearsay anyway and we don't even know this guy's name, let alone who he really was or what exactly he actually said.

It's something I would love to see investigated in much more depth by someone with subpoena power, but those things will come with time.

Standard truther canard:

Nothing can happen if it hasn't happened before.

Close, but no. Nothing can be scientifically predicted if the science required doesn't exist yet.

In those cases, some other form of information was used to predict what was going to happen. Like inside knowledge of a countdown and implosion.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Actually, it proves no such thing, since this is hearsay

Funny you say that, cuz weren't you just saying that this is interesting, etc in your above post?

Let's see if I get this right - when an engineer, working for the FDNY, and quite probably MAN times more competent at determining the state of a structure that's on fire than any truther we'll find here at ATS, predicts that it might fall soon, it's heresay. And all because you personally believe yourself )an electrical engineering student) to be so competent in the field don't need to be told by writers and editors of Structure magazine, nor listen to those with 20,30, and 40 years of REAL experience in these matters. Your knowledge outweighs theirs????????

Nothing can be scientifically predicted if the science required doesn't exist yet.

The science has existed for a hundred plus years. What you are lacking is another example of a 47 story building suffering global collapse due to heat expansion of a long span floor beam.

Or do you deny the very existence of fire engineering?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
Actually, it proves no such thing, since this is hearsay

Funny you say that, cuz weren't you just saying that this is interesting, etc in your above post?

Yes because I don't take what he is saying for granted.

Let's see if I get this right - when an engineer, working for the FDNY, and quite probably MAN times more competent at determining the state of a structure that's on fire than any truther we'll find here at ATS, predicts that it might fall soon, it's heresay.

Haha, no, it's hearsay because coming from Hayden, it fits the definition of hearsay.

Maybe you don't know what "hearsay" means.

I'll let you look it up before you respond.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
That he was correct proves that the engineer in question is better informed than you about what can cause a steel framed building to collapse.

Because Mr. Hayden refuses to release the name of the engineer, then there was none. No name = no engineer. All hearsay with zero proof.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Nothing can be scientifically predicted if the science required doesn't exist yet.

The science has existed for a hundred plus years. What you are lacking is another example of a 47 story building suffering global collapse due to heat expansion of a long span floor beam.

Or do you deny the very existence of fire engineering?

You're both avoiding this.

I wonder why that is???

Originally posted by bsbray11

He could certainly have been "compromised," and knew more about the situation than he was letting on. For example, this nameless "engineer" story could just be a slight re-working of an actual experience with a federal agent from WTC7 telling him they had the building pre-wired to protect secure information and that the building would be brought down and he would be sworn to secrecy about it. No more, no less. Or there could be thousands of other scenarios like this that could have taken place.

I find it most ironic that someone that would cry heresay about an engineer that may wish to remain anonymous, would also make up a totally baseless statement like this.

Very sad.

Very sad indeed....