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

[Christopher7]

Which exit were they using? Here's what JREFer NDBoston, who worked in WTC 7, says:

They may have gone out the back but they described the condition of the lobby which is at the front-center of the building as one might expect.
See pg 8 of NIST report to confirm this.

 

[Christopher7]

In the NIST rerort On pg 18:
"Damage to the south face was described by a number or individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

-middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground
-
-
-
At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
* Firefighters found individuals on floors 7 & 8 and led them out of the building
*
*
* No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primairly white dust coating and black wires hanging from celing areas were observed

******************************************

Cheif Frank Fellini:
".....building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the tower. When it fell it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors accross the facade on Vesy street."

Boyle's statement about "a hole 20 storys tall in the building" is in conflict with "No heavy debris was observed in the lobby" and Chief Fellinis' statement and a 10 story gouge, he must have been refering to the south west corner.

Who stated that there was a 10 story gouge in WTC7 ?

 

[Christopher7]

Edit to clarify:

Which exit were they using?

They may have gone out the back but they described the condition of the lobby which is at the front-center of the building as one might expect.
See pg 8 of NIST report to confirm this.

 

[Pardalis]

Christopher7, how does this help the controlled demolition theory or weakens the official story?

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, how does this help the controlled demolition theory or weakens the official story?

It shows that there was no severe damage to the lobby and therefore no damage to support columns 69, 72 and 75.

 

[Pardalis]

Did the NIST report any signs of explosives or thermite?

 

[Christopher7]

Did the NIST report any signs of explosives or thermite?

They didn't consider anything other than the debris damage/fire Hypothesis

 

[Pardalis]

They didn't consider anything other than the debris damage/fire Hypothesis

Did they have any reason to?

 

[Pardalis]

It shows that there was no severe damage to the lobby and therefore no damage to support columns 69, 72 and 75.

at page 50-51:

From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following general sequence of events appears possible:

1. Debris damaged the south face of the perimeter moment frame and some interior core framing on the south side. The debris impact severed approximately a quarter to a third of the south face perimeter columns. The damaged floors are less certain, but reports indicate
they occurred between the ground and up to Floors 15 or 20. The extent of damage, both structural and to fireproofing, of core framing is not known, but damage to elevator cars and shafts was reported to have occurred around columns 69 to 78 at Floors 8 or 9.

page 43:

I3.6 Columns, Transfer Girders or Transfer Trusses Fail: The fires could have failed interior columns, transfer girders, transfer trusses, or their framing connections.

o I4.4 Lateral Displacements: Fire effects may have caused column instability failure by lateral displacements from asymmetric thermal expansion of the floor system. Such thermally-induced displacements must overcome the restraining effect of the remaining floor system against further lateral deflection of the column.

I see nothing here that states that the damage necesserally had to have been to the lobby, or that damage from the debris of the WTC1 collapse had to be the only cause for these columns to fail.

This says that fire could have caused the damage to the columns, at any floor where there were fires.

 

[Christopher7]

Did they have any reason to?

Since a CD is the only known cause of a global collapse of a modern high rise steel frame building in the USA (other than 911) it must be at least considered as a possibility.

 

[Pardalis]

Since a CD is the only known cause of a global collapse of a modern high rise steel frame building in the USA (other than 911) it must be at least considered as a possibility.

Again, were there any signs of explosives or thermite reported, before and after the collapse?

 

[R.Mackey]

Since a CD is the only known cause of a global collapse of a modern high rise steel frame building in the USA (other than 911) it must be at least considered as a possibility.

Nope.

Following that logic, there has never been a CD in the USA that began with an airplane crashing into it. Nope, not one, never. Therefore, we should not consider CD as a possibility.

Pretty stupid, huh?

What I'm trying to say here is that precedence is irrelevant. People knew ahead of time, even though it had never happened, that (1) aircraft and (2) fire could destroy hi-rise buildings. That's why the original WTC designers considered the 707 case. That's why fire protection measures were included. That's why, to this day, hi-rises in NYC are built to earthquake standards, even though no hi-rise in NYC has ever been destroyed by an earthquake.

Science gives us the ability to predict things different from what we've experienced in the past. That's the whole point.

 

[Christopher7]

at page 50-51:

There's no evidence to suggest that falling debris damaged any interior core framing. Cheif Fellini stated that the damage was between the third and sixth floors (no mention of the 14th floor) and could not have effected the elevators on the 8th floor.
Pg 18
12:10 pm "No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8"

I have shown that there was no 20 story hole that would have taken out the lobby and damaged columns 69, 72 and 75. That was a misinterpertation of Boyles' statement, so i hope we can put that puppy to bed.

I see nothing here that states that the damage necesserally had to have been to the lobby, or that damage from the debris of the WTC1 collapse had to be the only cause for these columns to fail.

This says that fire could have caused the damage to the columns, at any floor where there were fires.

We are left with a lot of if's, could have, may have, etc. ending in "appears possible"

It cannot be said with any degree of cirtainty that wtc7 collapsed because of debris damage and fire and i only ask that you-all would stop saying so.

 

[Christopher7]

Nope.

Your refusal to acknowledge the possibility that WTC7 could have been a CD is neither reasonible or logical.

Following that logic, there has never been a CD in the USA that began with an airplane crashing into it. Nope, not one, never. Therefore, we should not consider CD as a possibility.

Pretty stupid, huh?

Yes, very stupid. We're talking about wtc7 and there was no airplane involved.

What I'm trying to say here is that precedence is irrelevant. People knew ahead of time, even though it had never happened, that (1) aircraft and (2) fire could destroy hi-rise buildings. That's why the original WTC designers considered the 707 case. That's why fire protection measures were included. That's why, to this day, hi-rises in NYC are built to earthquake standards, even though no hi-rise in NYC has ever been destroyed by an earthquake.

Science gives us the ability to predict things different from what we've experienced in the past. That's the whole point.

I'm not talking about precedence or prediction, just the FACT that CD's result in global collapse. They are the only known cause of global collapse (without the help of an airplane) and therefore any reasonible person would, at very least, consider that possibility.

 

[Pardalis]

Again, were there any signs of explosives or thermite reported, before and after the collapse?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

REMINDER: Any info here quoting the NIST report is dealing with the NIST report on WTC 1 and 2, which is not the final report on WTC 7. That report is still pending.

 

[Belz...]

Your refusal to acknowledge the possibility that WTC7 could have been a CD is neither reasonible or logical.

Look, mister Spock, it's certainly a bare possibility, but not one that can be entertained using the available evidence, and certainly not in any way, shape or form probable.

Yes, very stupid. We're talking about wtc7 and there was no airplane involved.

Yes, there were TWO airplaines involved.

I'm not talking about precedence or prediction, just the FACT that CD's result in global collapse. They are the only known cause of global collapse (without the help of an airplane) and therefore any reasonible person would, at very least, consider that possibility.

Incorrect. Earthquakes can cause total collapse as well, so can nuclear bombs, etc. The only reason why you say "They are the only known cause of global collapse" is BECAUSE of precedence, so don't say that you're not talking about that.

 

[R.Mackey]

Your refusal to acknowledge the possibility that WTC7 could have been a CD is neither reasonible or logical.

Is that so.

I'm calling you out, buddy. Find the error in the following logic:

1. WTC 7 was hit by huge amounts of falling debris.
2. This debris caused gross structural damage and started fires on numerous floors.
3. The fires raged, relatively unfought, for hours.
4. A gross lean was observed in the building by approximately 2 PM.
5. Fires continued for another three hours until the building collapsed.
6. WTC 7's collapse mechanics are completely consistent with a major support member failure low in the structure, due to its transfer-beam geometry, and the large volume of diesel fuel previously contained near the suspected point of collapse initiation.
7. Physics tells us that additional energy, in the form of explosives or otherwise, would not be necessary to cause collapse.
8. There were no visible or audible signs consistent with explosives.
9. There is no post-collapse evidence of explosives.
10. The explosives hypothesis is inconsistent with all of the facts on the ground.

Find the error or retract your statement. I dare you.

Yes, very stupid. We're talking about wtc7 and there was no airplane involved.

You didn't make it clear -- you were talking about NIST. Nonetheless, substitute "hit by thousands of tons of falling debris" for "hit by aircraft," and the logic still stands. Nobody has ever done a CD starting with dumping another building on top of it, ever.

I'm not talking about precedence or prediction, just the FACT that CD's result in global collapse. They are the only known cause of global collapse (without the help of an airplane) and therefore any reasonible person would, at very least, consider that possibility.

Since you're not talking about precedence, you're completely wrong. Fire, sinkholes, earthquakes, meteors, potentially collision with ground vehicles, improper design, fraudulent building practices, and gross material defects are also known causes of global collapse. We have safeguards to deal with nearly all of these, but it can happen.

And WTC 7 did have the help of an airplane. WTC 1 and 2, hit by airplanes, eventually collapsed. Their collapse caused immense damage to WTC 7. Your entire argument is based on ignorance.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Adding to pt 6, was WTC 7 not an air-rights building and therefore the major structural support on the sixth floor consisted of cantilevered support beams?

 

[T.A.M.]

So you are quoting NIST to prove there was no 20 storey gouge out of the south side of WTC7. So you feel the NIST report is valid then obviously. So from here on in, we can quote the NIST report for any of our purposes and obviously Chrstopher7 will accept the quotes validity, as he has now accepted NIST as a valid source.

So from now on, no complaints from Christopher7 about the NIST report. No calling it wrong, or created by shills...

Got it folks. So feel free to use NISt for any argument, knowing Christopher7 will not argue the validity of the evidence from this report.

TAM