Mayor Giuliani warning about the collapses

[LashL]

But why did WTC 7 collapse? News footage I've seen certainly looks like demolition. And Silverstein told officials to "pull it." There was no reason for that building to collapse. The fire was small and contained.

kc440

Oh, boy. How many erroneous statements can you make in a single post?

The final report on WTC7 is not yet complete, but the working hypothesis seems rational and reasonable in light of the known facts and evidence. That is, that it collapsed due to a combination of structural damage caused by the collapse of the towers and the unchecked fires that burned within it for several hours.

Silverstein's comment had absolutely nothing to do with controlled demolition.

The fires were neither small nor contained. The firefighters who were on the scene described massive fires on numerous floors, and also described the lack of firefighting capability within the building due to broken water mains etc. as a result of the collapse of the towers.

The videos of the collapse do not show the bottom third of the building, which is understandable given that the area was a mess by then and there were no good vantage points for filming that could show the complete picture.

I'd suggest that you try to expand your google skills beyond conspiracy theory sites, and try to look at facts and evidence instead of just buying into nonsense like that.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

But why did WTC 7 collapse? News footage I've seen certainly looks like demolition. And Silverstein told officials to "pull it." There was no reason for that building to collapse. The fire was small and contained.

There used to be three levels of wrong: wrong, wronger, and wrongest.

This may be a new, fourth category.

 

[gfunkusarelius]

sometimes i think people come on here, do a search for any threads that have the keywords like collapse, wtc, demolition, etc and then just copy and paste the same old arguments and then go to bed or watch tv while they rest content in the knowledge that we will all respond to the same nonsense that has been debunked hundreds of times.

 

[Loss Leader]

And Silverstein told officials to "pull it."

Actually, Silverstein told reporters that he told the FDNY to "pull it." There's a huge difference. If Silverstein were in on the conspiracy, if he knew the building was rigged with explosives, if he had the power to order the demolition of the building, and if he actually did direct the FDNY to demolish his own building for the insurance proceeds, why in HEAVEN'S NAME would he admit it to reporters?

In fact, the entire original interview makes clear that the FDNY had been in close communication regarding their efforts in WTC7 all day. They came to him and advised that they thought the building was going to collapse, they could not save the building and that further efforts would needlessly endanger the lives of firefighters. They asked him what he wanted to do about the operation and Silverstein told them to "pull it."

It' just not evidence of anything.

 

[CptColumbo]

There used to be three levels of wrong: wrong, wronger, and wrongest.

This may be a new, fourth category.

Wrongerer?
I think you have to start adding adjectives. Utterly, completely, unbelievably.

 

[Rob Lister]

wrongeresterest...but I don't bother with the debate because I know that it is futile.

Rather, I egg them on.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

I'm not sure, but I think I read somewhere that Allyn Kilsheimer predicted the collapse before the first one fell.

I predicted the collapse before the first one fell. Of course, I was standing in a room full of engineers in Alabama watching it on TV. It was terrible feeling that maybe those there didn't know it. Do these guys see a conspiracy in the sunrise each morning?

 

[tsig]

But why did WTC 7 collapse? News footage I've seen certainly looks like demolition. And Silverstein told officials to "pull it." There was no reason for that building to collapse. The fire was small and contained.

kc440

I'm sure that your trained eye trumps all the experts and thier nasty figures.

Thanks for setting us all straight.

Some of us here were trying to throw Presidents out of office before you were born. (Nixon)

 

[Hellbound]

WTC 7 didn't collapse. The Earth fell on its roof. From below. Seriously, it's relativity and everything. Quatum vibrations, you know. Homeopathic nano-thermite.

 

[Bell]

WTC 7 didn't collapse. The Earth fell on its roof. From below. Seriously, it's relativity and everything. Quatum vibrations, you know. Homeopathic nano-thermite.

Thank you, Huntsman. I was just thinking about that (for real). Now, let's work from there.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Wrongerer?
I think you have to start adding adjectives. Utterly, completely, unbelievably.

Verbing weirds things.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I thought JREFs and OCTs were interested in facts and evidence. All these posts and nobody even cares to find out what Giuliani actually said, to whom, when, and in what context?

Giuliani was talking to Peter Jennings on ABC about 9/11, I'm not sure exactly when, but shortly after 9/11, and he said this:

I .. I went down to the scene and we set up a headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit, got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us. -Rudy Giuliani

Now, considering that no skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire, it seems odd that someone knew it was "going to collapse".

It's also odd that he was operating out of 75 Barkley street, when his bunker in WTC7 was especially designed as a command center for just such emergencies.

 

[Shrinker]

I thought JREFs and OCTs were interested in facts and evidence. All these posts and nobody even cares to find out what Giuliani actually said, to whom, when, and in what context?

Giuliani was talking to Peter Jennings on ABC about 9/11, I'm not sure exactly when, but shortly after 9/11, and he said this:


Now, considering that no skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire, it seems odd that someone knew it was "going to collapse".

It's also odd that he was operating out of 75 Barkley street, when his bunker in WTC7 was especially designed as a command center for just such emergencies.

Wow, you're really bad at this.

"Hey the WTC is under attack, get me to my bunker in the WTC!".

"And quick, find out if the towers are going to collapse!"
"How?"
"Has one ever collapsed before?"
"Don't think so."
"Then one never will, we're safe!"

ETA: Besides, wasn't this whole collapse issue resolved ages ago when you abandoned your debate against chipmunk stew?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Now, considering that no skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire, it seems odd that someone knew it was "going to collapse".

It's also odd that he was operating out of 75 Barkley street, when his bunker in WTC7 was especially designed as a command center for just such emergencies.

100% of all skyscrapers hit by airliners have subesquently collapsed.

Oh, so since he didn't use his bunker, but put himself in greater danger, this means that he had ... that he ..... wait ...... mmm ...

Hans

 

[firecoins]

I am curious here. Guiliani didn't go thte bunker in the WTC because the WTC was under attack. This seems pretty obvious. It was a controversey to have the bunker in the WTC before 9/11 because of the 1993 attack at the WTC.

George Bush wasn't rushed out of the Fl. elemantary school because he was told the WTC in New York was under attack. I think he figured well the WTC in NYC and I am in FL. there is no need to panick. I am probably at safe enough distance.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I thought JREFs and OCTs were interested in facts and evidence. All these posts and nobody even cares to find out what Giuliani actually said, to whom, when, and in what context?

Giuliani was talking to Peter Jennings on ABC about 9/11, I'm not sure exactly when, but shortly after 9/11, and he said this:


Now, considering that no skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire, it seems odd that someone knew it was "going to collapse".

It's also odd that he was operating out of 75 Barkley street, when his bunker in WTC7 was especially designed as a command center for just such emergencies.

Of course you find Guilianis comments and behavior unusual. Guiliani obviously consulted with engineers and followed thier counsel. These engineers made thier assesments based upon thier years of training, education and experience.

You, on the other hand, have no training, no education and no experience. And you refuse to associate with those who do.

That Guiliani did not act out of willful ignorance is not evidence of a conspiracy.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

The point I was making is that Gravy and others were speculating about what Giuliani might have said, and which tower he might have been talking about, when the information is readily available. Gravy is a very able researcher. I find his lack of curiosity interesting.

If someone had said to Giuliani, "Hey, we're under attack, let's get out of here", that would be different. That is not what happened. What happened was, according to Giuliani, that someone stated with certainty that "The World Trade Center was going to collapse".

I find it implausible that any engineer would have made such a statement before the south tower blew up, considering the towers were designed to withstand jet crashes and fires, and that they were withstanding them. And that the north tower had withstood a 3 hour fire in 1975, quite low in the structure, with almost 100 stories above.

Now, after the south tower blew up, all bets are off. Sure, if they blew up one, could be a strong chance they'd blow up the other one also.

 

[R.Mackey]

I find it implausible that any engineer would have made such a statement before the south tower blew up, considering the towers were designed to withstand jet crashes and fires, and that they were withstanding them. And that the north tower had withstood a 3 hour fire in 1975, quite low in the structure, with almost 100 stories above.

Why is it implausible? Structures don't always perform the way they're designed. The design failure performance was entirely hypothetical. Detailed modeling was impossible when they were constructed. After the aircraft actually hit, there's much more additional data, real data.

Example, I was an undergraduate at the University of California, Santa Cruz, when the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, magnitude 7.1, struck. All of our buildings were designed to withstand earthquakes in that range, and all were designed to fail gracefully -- allowing egress -- for earthquakes up to 7.5 M_R.

Nonetheless, some were damaged, some heavily. Others escaped almost unscathed. Some that were felt to be underdesigned performed better than some that were considered overbuilt.

It happens. Engineering involves management of uncertainty.

Any structural engineer who actually watched the WTC towers after they got hit and burned might indeed conclude that they would fail, original specification be damned. There's nothing implausible about this at all.

Now, after the south tower blew up, all bets are off. Sure, if they blew up one, could be a strong chance they'd blow up the other one also.

"Blow up," huh. Biased, much?

 

[LashL]

If someone had said to Giuliani, "Hey, we're under attack, let's get out of here", that would be different. That is not what happened. What happened was, according to Giuliani, that someone stated with certainty that "The World Trade Center was going to collapse".

I find it implausible that any engineer would have made such a statement before the south tower blew up, considering the towers were designed to withstand jet crashes and fires, and that they were withstanding them. And that the north tower had withstood a 3 hour fire in 1975, quite low in the structure, with almost 100 stories above.

Now, after the south tower blew up, all bets are off. Sure, if they blew up one, could be a strong chance they'd blow up the other one also.

Neither tower "blew up". And see post #10 regarding an engineer making such a statement prior to the collapse of the south tower.


Start here:
According to the book cited above, it appears that an engineer from the Department of Buildings reported that the structural damage to the towers appeared to be immense and that the stability of both buildings was compromised.

 

[firecoins]

I find it implausible that any engineer would have made such a statement before the south tower blew up, considering the towers were designed to withstand jet crashes and fires, and that they were withstanding them. And that the north tower had withstood a 3 hour fire in 1975, quite low in the structure, with almost 100 stories above.
.

So wrong! THe towers were desinged to withstand the impact of a 707 that accidentally crashed into a tower. It was assumed such a plane would be landing or taking off and not going at a high rate of speed.

The planes were 747s, 20% bigger and purposely slammed into the WTC at speeds of 500 mph. The towers were not designed for that at all!

Furthermore, emergency services think in worst case scenarios. As a former EMT I was trained to think that way. It is not unreasonable to have expected partial or complete collapses in the twin toweres. Due to the location of the NYC emergency bunker, to move out leaders in to an non-affected area is basic emergency planning.