9/11: FDNY Member Says "Definitely" Bombs in Towers?

Pardalis:I should have separated the quote from the responce. sorry bout that.

Sword: On the contrary, i am certain, bassed on the same information you have, that wtc7 is a CD.

Gumboot: No one can guage the 'likelyhood' of there being explosives there, thats pure speculation.
The elevator shafts are hermetically sealed , except where the planes hit and above. There was no SMOKE and no reports of fire below the impact zone that i know of (except for the lobby). Do you know of any?

Gravy: Most of us have seen CD's on TV and we've all heard lots of explosions on TV and in the Movies.

All these whitnesses could be wrong but we have to accept the possibility that, maybe they did hear 'explosions'.
 
Things doesn't need flames to explode. Exposure to massive heat over a prolonged period of time can do it. Which is the reson why leaving an aerosol can in direct sunlight is an extremely bad idea unless you want it to blow. With a mighty impressive bang at that.

Now combine what Gumboot just said with various containers under pressure including, but not limited to: Fire extinguishers, deos, hairspray, aircondition, fueltanks (which also explodes when put under enough heat), various glass and stone surfaces (yes, they can explode, or rather crack, rather noisyly) and you have a wealth of explosions going off WITHOUT a demolition/explosives charge being involved.

All very true. There was at least one major explosion, apparently of jet fuel, in one of the north tower elevator shafts. That's the explosion that burned many people, which firemen and Willie Rodriguez describe.

Add to the above the possible sound of interior collapses, bolts and welds failing, debris falling down shafts, and, most of all, the south tower collapsing (which many people said sounded like an explosion...the whole collapse), and you've got countless potential sources of things that were, and sounded like, explosions. None of which involve demolitions charges.

It can't be said enough: the CD idea is utterly preposterous, and there isn't a shred of evidence to support it.
 
Sword: On the contrary, i am certain, bassed on the same information you have, that wtc7 is a CD.
Christopher, do you believe it's reasonable that a CD was done to a building that was severely damaged, that was on fire for 7 hours, that was bulging and making noises consistent with movement of structural elements, that the experts on the scene were convinced would collapse, and for which there isn't a shred of evidence that explosives were used?

Christopher, how do you account for the fact that the collapse zone began to be cleared at around 3:00?

Please carefully consider the following information.

Video of smoke pouring from WTC 7's south side:
http://911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi

In this video clip Ashley Banfield of MSNBC is interviewing a woman when WTC 7 collapses. Newsman Brian Williams says, “What we’ve been fearing all day has apparently just happened…”
http://msnbc.com/m/mp/dwvideo.asp?v=n_banfield_sevenwtc_010911

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

Read NIST's WTC 7 Interim Report here: http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Following are more quotes about the condition of WTC 7 from firemen who were there. Note how many times the word "pull" is used to describe pulling men away from the collapse zone.

FDNY Chief of Department Daniel Nigro, who was calling the shots on the scene : "The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.” [Fire Engineering, 10/2002]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? ??Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html

Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty. A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on.

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. …There was no hydrant pressure…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 Brandies 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.

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/ Nigro_Daniel.txt

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC /Cruthers.txt

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC /Ryan_William.txt

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.

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.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out? 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. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

“The consensus was that it was basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it.” Along with some others, he goes inside WTC 7 and yells up the stairwells to the fire fighters, “Drop everything and get out!” [Murphy, 2002, pp. 175-176]

“The firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers.” [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 5-21]

Christopher7, please explain how these quotes are supportive of your CD claim.
 
Last edited:
All very true. There was at least one major explosion, apparently of jet fuel, in one of the north tower elevator shafts. That's the explosion that burned many people, which firemen and Willie Rodriguez describe.

Add to the above the possible sound of interior collapses, bolts and welds failing, debris falling down shafts, and, most of all, the south tower collapsing (which many people said sounded like an explosion...the whole collapse), and you've got countless potential sources of things that were, and sounded like, explosions. None of which involve demolitions charges.

It can't be said enough: the CD idea is utterly preposterous, and there isn't a shred of evidence to support it.

Rodrriguez was very clear that the explosion in the basement happened BEFORE he heard the plane hit above. This also explanes the lobby damage and fires. I have a video of a fireman saying "a blast came UP the stairs and knocked me to the ground".

I haven't heard of any fires between the impact zone and the lobby, have you?
No smoke, no fire. Nothing to cause anything to explode.
 
Rodrriguez was very clear that the explosion in the basement happened BEFORE he heard the plane hit above.

Rodriguez was very clear that a NOISE from below happened an instant before the noise from above. That's to be expected, since sound travels much faster through solids, like steel columns, than through air.

Here is how he FIRST described what happened:

We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "and then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off.

This also explanes the lobby damage and fires. I have a video of a fireman saying "a blast came UP the stairs and knocked me to the ground".

I haven't heard of any fires between the impact zone and the lobby, have you?
No smoke, no fire. Nothing to cause anything to explode.
Yes, as I mentioned, the jet fuel explosion in the elevator shaft. The fireman may have been knocked over by a secondary fuel explosion, or by the explosion of a transformer, switchgear, etc.

The account of Mike Pecoraro, who was in the basement:

Mike Pecoraro, an engineer who is part of the crew that services the WTC complex, is at work in the mechanical shop in the second subbasement of the north WTC tower when it is hit. When the room he is in starts filling with white smoke and he can smell kerosene (jet fuel), he heads up stairs with a co-worker towards a small machine shop on the C level. Yet, he says, “There was nothing there but rubble. We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press - gone!” [Note: "50 tons refers to the press's hydraulic capacity. An average 50-ton press weighs about 650 lbs.] He then heads for the parking garage yet finds that “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything.” He ascends to the B level, where he sees a 300-pound steel and concrete fire door, which is lying on the floor, wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil.” Pecoraro recalls seeing similar things at the center when it was bombed in 1993 and is therefore convinced that a bomb has gone off this time. When he makes it into the main lobby, he sees massive damage: “The whole lobby was soot and black, elevator doors were missing. The marble was missing off some of the walls. 20-foot section of marble, 20 by 10 foot sections of marble, gone from the walls. ... Broken glass everywhere, the revolving doors were all broken and their glass was gone.” Pecoraro says he only later hears that “jet fuel actually came down the elevator shaft, blew off all the (elevator) doors and flames rolled through the lobby. That explained all the burnt people and why everything was sooted in the lobby.” He makes it out of the north tower before it collapses. [Chief Engineer, 8/1/2002] bolding mine.

Firefighter Peter Blaich:
We started going up the B stairway. As we got to the third floor of the B stairway, we forced open an elevator door which was burnt on all three sides. The only thing that was remaining was the hoistway door. And inside the elevator were about [?] I didn't recognize them initially, but a guy from 1 Truck said oh my God, those are people. They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene. That's when Lieutenant Foti said oh, that's the jet fuel. I remember it smelled like if you're camping and you drop a kerosene lamp. Firehouse Magazine, April 2002

Here's another account of the after effects of the north tower strike, from a shopper in the concourse.

Page 1 http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/accounts.htm
Page 2 http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/accounts2.htm
 
Last edited:
Rodriguez was very clear that a NOISE from below happened an instant before the noise from above. That's to be expected, since sound travels much faster through solids, like steel columns, than through air.

Here is how he FIRST described what happened:

Not to mention the fact that there's a possibility that part of the concrete in the foundation cracked due to the swaying of the towers caused by the plane impacts. That would also have made a lot of sound.
 
The interview i saw was cut up. I didn't care for that. Do you know where i can find an unedited version
 
The interview i saw was cut up. I didn't care for that. Do you know where i can find an unedited version

That depends which interview you are talking about. MAjor networks usually don't broadcasts their rawmaterial. I would also like to see the interview you are talking about. I have a suspicion as to which one you are talking about, but I want it confirmed.
 
Ref. post 83

Gravy: That is the most complete collection of data (with ref.) i have seen on the subject.
Point well made!

However.........................It doesn't explain how all 58 exterior support columns failed at the same time. My belief is 'no fire could burn so perfectly as to heat 58 steel I beams to the fail point at the same time, especially the 2 corners of the north side'.

The bldg. had to have been riged for demolition BEFORE 9-11 and therein lies the rub.
 
Last edited:
Ref. post 83

Gravy: That is the most complete collection of data (with ref.) i have seen on the subject.
Point well made!

However.........................It doesn't explain how all 58 exterior support columns failed at the same time. My belief is 'no fire could burn so perfectly as to heat 58 steel I beams to the fail point at the same time, especially the 2 corners of the north side'.

All the columns don't have to fail at once. When enough are weakened the rest cannot support the extra load. It is the way structures fail.

Stand on an empty soda can some time. If you are light enough, it will support your weight. If you have someone put a tiny dent on one side, the can fails. It will fail completely around the entire perimeter due to the overall load.
 
If that were the case then the bldg. would have fallen over. Fact is, all 58 exterior columns did fail at the same time, it was NOT a case of progressive collapse.
 
If that were the case then the bldg. would have fallen over. Fact is, all 58 exterior columns did fail at the same time, it was NOT a case of progressive collapse.

Source?

ETA: Not of how many colums collapsed at the same time but of what makes it impossible to fall the way it did with only a "partial" collapse.
 
Last edited:
As for your "Beer can theory"

If you put a dent in the side the can will fold to the side at that point.
Not only does this screw up your theory but there's a chance you will fall on your ass. :)
 
If that were the case then the bldg. would have fallen over. Fact is, all 58 exterior columns did fail at the same time, it was NOT a case of progressive collapse.

How is this 'fact'? The eastern side of WTC7 fell first, indicating that the failures were not all at the same time. Once the intial failure occured the extra loads would have instantly been redistributed to the rest of the damaged + weakened structure, which would have failed very quickly, but not simultaneously, a runaway collapse.
I would expect any collapsing building to lean slightly toward the side on which the collapse was initiated. We saw this happen with WTCs 1,2 and 7.
 
Last edited:
If that were the case then the bldg. would have fallen over. Fact is, all 58 exterior columns did fail at the same time, it was NOT a case of progressive collapse.

Not at all. Structural failure at one point will often result in failure at other points too soon to case any tipping of the structure. This assumes that the loads beomce to much for the other support points.

Structural engineers understand this, which is why they have no trouble with he failure of WTC7.

Here, read this, and pay particular attention to pages 30+

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf
 
If that were the case then the bldg. would have fallen over. Fact is, all 58 exterior columns did fail at the same time, it was NOT a case of progressive collapse.
The Fire's explanation is correct. The columns (not sure where you get the 58 figure) failed progressively. In some cases the onset of failure is obvious. For instance, did you read the helicopter pilot reports of the buckling of the north tower columns? Have you seen the close-up videos of the south tower just before it collapsed? It's clear that the structures are failing. Once the load can no longer be distributed among the undamaged columns, buckling ensues, and progresses very quickly. Gravity doesn't wait around.

The idea that the buildings should have toppled over is not supported by any structural engineer, anywhere, that I'm aware of. Do you know of any? The buildings were not solid structures, but were complex assemblies of thousands of interconnected parts, each of which had physical limitations. The WTC buildings weren't constructed like, and could not behave like, trees, as Judy Wood would like you to believe.

We take these issues seriously here. We take the time to present evidence that supports our arguments and that refutes yours. Please, when responding, address the evidence that's been presented. Saying that you think there were preplanted explosives in the buildings is not an argument, it's a belief. If you have evidence to support your claims, present it.
 
Source?

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1643313543353229958

Please take 5 min and watch this video before responding.

Looking at wtc7 from several angles, it's clear that first a small section, then the center, then the outside walls (all 4 corners start down at the SAME TIME). This is what you would see in an 'implosion', a fine example of getting a bldg. to fall in on itself. There was some damage to surrounding buildings and it fell a little to the south, it didn't do any further damage to buildings 5 & 6 right accross the street.

ETA: Not of how many colums collapsed at the same time....
(reply).......indeed i'm talkin about all all them exterior columns

but of what makes it impossible to fall the way it did.............
(reply).............I think a CD is the most likely suspect.


with only a "partial" collapse.

(reply).........Kinda looks like a total collapse to me.


What does ETA stand for?
 
christopher7 it would indeed be helpful if you could find a link or something to a qualified structural engineer anywhere in the world who, after studying the collapses, came to the conclusion they should have toppled over and not come straight down.

Cause I can't find any
 

Back
Top Bottom