Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

[stateofgrace]

Am I missing something here?

Russell, you know full well the final report into the collapse of WTC 7 is not in the public domain , yet you are demanding that people here pre-empt it and answer your questions. Is that correct?

You are going off on one expecting people to produce photographs of fire, offer up theories in the hope you can question them and prove that WTC 7 was demolished? Yes.

If you are so certain why do you not get in touch with those that are investigating this and present your research, present your evidence. Because you know it will be dismissed, you know it wishful thinking.

You have openly accused people of mocking evidence. I personally do no such thing I mock the cters , I mock the mindset of individuals like yourself that are simply excuse machines for unworkable theories. You are right now trying to take the high ground and show how the collapse of a steel framed building in the UK is not representative of steel frame buildings.

I read many posts from learned people on this forum who have simply pulled apart everything you have said, you have not responded to these posts. You have right now an offer on the table from Lashl to publicly or privately submit your evidence you have not responded. Instead you simply offer up excuse after excuse as why your movement should be listened to. You excuse the likes of Kill towns, despipicable behaviour. You excuse the likes of PD who simply mock it all. As more and more evidence is made available that simply demolish you theories, your excuses get more and more absurd.

Over here in the UK we have a notoriously bad public transport system. Our train system is absolutely appalling; it is one long standing joke. British rail in their wisdom decided to address it by telling the public why individual trains were late. Excuse ranged form leafs on the track to the wrong type of snow on the tracks. It all backfired and rather than admit the entire train system was crap they made laughing stocks of themselves by making excuses.

This is you Russell, an excuse machine, dismissing all evidence to the contrary that your train system is crap, refusing to accept the mountain of evidence. Believing that leafs on the track or the wrong type of snow really is responsible the systems failings.

 

[Gravy]

ENORMOUS? Now your resorting to word misuse?

So you couldn't be bothered to read the FDNY accounts after all. The only reason I can think of for that is that you're afraid of what the experts said. Remember, you said the FDNY was the best when it comes to high-rise fires. Well, here are some excerpts from their statements.

A note to onlookers: the following accounts are only a few of those that appear in my WTC 7 paper.

We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110081.PDF

...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF

I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110018.PDF

When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110207.PDF

At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110222.PDF

Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf page 48.

At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings.
–M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf page 49

[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and whatnot. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110413.PDF

"And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

...And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110261.PDF

The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 69

"There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.

We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110103.PDF

Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable (just before collapse):
I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.

...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot.

...He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too. –Firefighter Gerard Suden http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110022.PDF

I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "**** 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110117.PDF

I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183/index.html

They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations. –Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110167.PDF

There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110098.PDF

My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profiles/profiles_vitchers_t.html

That is very indicative of a smothered fire.

Russell, you haven't been paying attention. We covered all of this a few days ago. I'm sure this will be familiar:

In your expert opinion, are the fires above "almost smothered," ex-firefighter Pickering?

​

Does NIST know nothing about fires, Russell? You read this a few days ago. Remember?

Q: If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

A: Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

I want to see flame.

I know you want to see flame. But where will you turn to satisfy that urge? Honestly, Russell, where? Is it reasonable to want to see flame where flame is obscured by smoke in the few photos and videos we have of WTC 7? You also want to see a clear video of the Pentagon crash, remember?

So when we can't have what we want in these situations, should we consider the evidence gathered by experts, or should we rely on our imaginations? Please respond.

Also, FEMA said the massive energy potential in the diesel at WTC 7 was only a low "probability" of fueling the fires enough to collapse the building.

Yes, as I pointed out above. When you do read, you don't read carefully, do you?

We've been through all this before, Russell. Is any of it sinking in yet, or should we expect continued deliberate ignorance and disrespect of firefighters from you?

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:

"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]

 

[Gravy]

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/towers.jpg

I think somebody made a little error about where the towers and the other burning buildings were.

No, Russell, you erred badly in your analysis. The photo of the smoke from WTC 7 was taken in the late afternoon, as the lighting clearly shows. If you had bothered to read my WTC 7 paper, you would have seen similar photos.

If you can't be bothered to look into these issues, why do you presume to opine on them?

 

[Moving On]

No, Russell, you erred badly in your analysis. The photo of the smoke from WTC 7 was taken in the late afternoon, as the lighting clearly shows. If you had bothered to read my WTC 7 paper, you would have seen similar photos.

If you can't be bothered to look into these issues, why do you presume to opine on them?

Great lengthy and distracting post.

MAY I PLEASE see photos or videos of those fires at WTC 7? You showed me fires at everything EXCEPT WTC 7. These techniques of yours don't work on me.

Also, will you be able to admit you placed the towers poorly in your photos? I mean it's photos against you. This part of it is not philosophy!!

 

[Moving On]

Just in case people got lost in all the words I will remind you here of what we're talking about. Were waiting for Gravy to post a PHOTO of large fires in WTC 7.

 

[Moving On]

Fires that cause this.

 

[stateofgrace]

And therein lays the difference between you and Gravy. The post above is FACT. It is based on evidence that is available. Not crap like “I’m a visual man". Not let’s dismiss it all.

This available evidence and FACTS are right now been integrated into NIST’s final report. The one you will dismiss. Like you dismiss the available evidence that totally blows away your theories already.

Nominated

 

[MalvernHills]

Hmmm... derailing the important stuff and going back to the Toilet Paper Fire CT I'd like to mention that no one has pointed out that there is a large "Quinetiq" establishment not 1 mile from where the building collapsed.

Interestingly, Quinetiq, formerly DERA (Defence Evaluation and Research Agency), have not commented on the building collapse!! Why?

Several senior employees of said establishment were seen in Waitrose buying toilet roll PRIOR to the fire!

Military aircraft, including dark helicopters, have been seen flying over the hills in the last few days!!

I think the answer's clear and eagerly await "Loose Stool" at cinemas so that the rest of the world will know the troof.

I'm off to get my recycled paper back in...I may need it.

 

[Gravy]

Great lengthy and distracting post.

MAY I PLEASE see photos or videos of those fires at WTC 7? You showed me fires at everything EXCEPT WTC 7. These techniques of yours don't work on me.

Also, will you be able to admit you placed the towers poorly in your photos? I mean it's photos against you. This part of it is not philosophy!!

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/towers.jpg

Russell, you are digging deeper with each post. The photo from Jersey City that I posted is by Aman Zafar. See it in sequence here: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm

Even if you didn't know that, anyone with any sense can place the sun in the southwest in that photo. But you can't be bothered with small details like the sun, can you?

You need to read my posts above about the smoke obscuring WTC 7. Anything unclear about that?

Is there anything unclear about the accounts of the FDNY eyewitnesses, Russell? You know, the people whose lives depend on judging the condition of buildings on fire?

Your apology is expected.

 

[Moving On]

Am I missing something here?

Russell, you know full well the final report into the collapse of WTC 7 is not in the public domain , yet you are demanding that people here pre-empt it and answer your questions. Is that correct?

You are going off on one expecting people to produce photographs of fire, offer up theories in the hope you can question them and prove that WTC 7 was demolished? Yes.

If you are so certain why do you not get in touch with those that are investigating this and present your research, present your evidence. Because you know it will be dismissed, you know it wishful thinking.

You have openly accused people of mocking evidence. I personally do no such thing I mock the cters , I mock the mindset of individuals like yourself that are simply excuse machines for unworkable theories. You are right now trying to take the high ground and show how the collapse of a steel framed building in the UK is not representative of steel frame buildings.

I read many posts from learned people on this forum who have simply pulled apart everything you have said, you have not responded to these posts. You have right now an offer on the table from Lashl to publicly or privately submit your evidence you have not responded. Instead you simply offer up excuse after excuse as why your movement should be listened to. You excuse the likes of Kill towns, despipicable behaviour. You excuse the likes of PD who simply mock it all. As more and more evidence is made available that simply demolish you theories, your excuses get more and more absurd.

Over here in the UK we have a notoriously bad public transport system. Our train system is absolutely appalling; it is one long standing joke. British rail in their wisdom decided to address it by telling the public why individual trains were late. Excuse ranged form leafs on the track to the wrong type of snow on the tracks. It all backfired and rather than admit the entire train system was crap they made laughing stocks of themselves by making excuses.

This is you Russell, an excuse machine, dismissing all evidence to the contrary that your train system is crap, refusing to accept the mountain of evidence. Believing that leafs on the track or the wrong type of snow really is responsible the systems failings.

PHOTOS please. The personal insinuations are tiresome but still a fascinating tactic combined with coordinated and relentless repetition.

Good job!

 

[Moving On]

Russell, you are digging deeper with each post. The photo from Jersey City that I posted is by Aman Zafar. See it in sequence here: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm

Even if you didn't know that, anyone with any sense can place the sun in the southwest in that photo. But you can't be bothered with small details like the sun, can you?

Your apology is expected.

Gravy,

NO APOLOGY!

You insinuated the towers and other burning buildings were in a different location than they were.

I am not one of your groupies and your demands and expectations are comical to me.

Russell

You were wrong.

 

[Gravy]

PHOTOS please.

Is there anything unclear about the accounts of the FDNY eyewitnesses, Russell? You know, the people whose lives depend on judging the condition of buildings on fire?

Should the FDNY have been off purchasing cameras to snap shots of WTC 7?

Hey, Russell: an airliner once crashed two blocks from my home. There are no photos or videos of it crashing. How do we know it crashed?

I await your reply.

 

[Moving On]

Is there anything unclear about the accounts of the FDNY eyewitnesses, Russell? You know, the people whose lives depend on judging the condition of buildings on fire?

Hey, Russell: an airliner once crashed two blocks from my home. There are no photos or videos of it crashing. How do we know it crashed?

I await your reply.

PLEASE show me ANY photo of a significant fire in WTC 7.

Explain to me where the flame and even a few sparks were when it collapsed?

I await your reply.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy,

NO APOLOGY!

You insinuated the towers and other burning buildings were in a different location than they were.

I am not one of your groupies and your demands and expectations are comical to me.

Russell

You were wrong.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/towers.jpg

I insinuated no such thing, and you are dead wrong. I thought you were a researcher? Don't you know that the smoke from the towers was relatively minor on the afternoon of 9/11, and that the smoke from WTC 7 was massive? Do I really need to post more photos, Russell?

 

[Moving On]

Where are the "enormous" fires that burned "all day" that were supposed to be started by the physical damage to the building?

Looks like unrelated sporadic flires on different floors unconnected to the damage. I wonder what was on those floors?

 

[Larry Lovage]

In an ideal world more steel from WTC 7 would have been preserved, and a multitude of experts would have unlimited time to try to separate the steel that was fire-damaged in the standing building from steel that was fire-damaged while in the pile, and to examine every element for damage. In the real world, there were much, much more pressing concerns and demands.

In an ideal world, WTC7 would not have been damaged and set on fire on a day when two of the world's biggest buildings had collapsed, taking unknown thousands of lives including who knows how many fellow firefighters. In an ideal world, there's no way that the firefighting effort would have been terminated so quickly (it's so hard to avoid using the loaded phrases "pulled" or "pulled out"), and the fire left to burn unhindered for over seven hours - certainly not in the heart of New York City. Russell even provided a timeline for Madrid which demonstrated how a building could fall after 5+ hours of burning even when it was being fought!

ENORMOUS? Now your resorting to word misuse?

That is very indicative of a smothered fire.

Enormous. Let me see, in the photo you yourself made use of, the smoke cloud is emanating from the whole of one side of WTC7, and is of such magnitude that simple visual examination would lead you to conclude that the sheer volume of the smoke is already many, many times that of the skyscrapers it is drifting over. Then you provide a comparison photograph that demonstrates that the quantity of smoke from WTC7 was considerably greater than the smoke being generated by the fires in WTC1 and WTC2!

I would be hard put to it to describe any such smoke cloud as being the result of "smothering".

There's no smoke without fire, they say! The photos that you decry the lack of flame of are the strongest evidence for the fact that the WTC7 must have been burning considerably across a far greater cross sectional area than the Twin Towers fires, which were concentrated on the planestrike floors and above only; the strongest evidence that WTC7 must have been burning on most or all of its 47 floors.

 

[stateofgrace]

PHOTOS please. The personal insinuations are tiresome but still a fascinating tactic combined with coordinated and relentless repetition.

Good job!

Really?

I am happy to oblige.

Now Russell, you have all your evidence, so when are you going to get of your backside and do something? NIST are still working on their final report, why not submit your case?

Come on Russell, you are the darling of the truth movement, put up or shut up.

I defy you; I challenge you to put it to the authorities, stop posting on internet forums and do it. I look forward to the breaking story in the main stream media.

 

[Gravy]

PLEASE show me ANY photo of a significant fire in WTC 7.

Explain to me where the flame and even a few sparks were when it collapsed?

I await your reply.

What was unclear about my statement in this post?

I know you want to see flame. But where will you turn to satisfy that urge? Honestly, Russell, where? Is it reasonable to want to see flame where flame is obscured by smoke in the few photos and videos we have of WTC 7? You also want to see a clear video of the Pentagon crash, remember?

So when we can't have what we want in these situations, should we consider the evidence gathered by experts, or should we rely on our imaginations? Please respond.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2065112&postcount=140

 

[Larry Lovage]

Ah - now I understand that Russell denies that the indicated building is WTC7. We surely don't need a photo comparison to determine the truth of that? Doesn't anybody have a map?

In any case, the fires are not from the Twin Towers, therefore they are from the other WTC buildings set on fire by the collapses. Contemporaneous (live) news reports indicated that the buildings on fire ("uncontrollably") were WTC 5, 6 and 7 - and that all three were expected to collapse. So that smoke comes from those buildings if it comes from anything! And it's fortunate that only one of them did collapse in the event.

 

[Gravy]

Where are the "enormous" fires that burned "all day" that were supposed to be started by the physical damage to the building?

Looks like unrelated sporadic flires on different floors unconnected to the damage. I wonder what was on those floors?

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc7fire.jpg

Why do you show another photo that does NOT show the south side of the building, Russell? Why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge the accounts of the FDNY, ex-firefighter Pickering?

Your reply is expected.