Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

[Moving On]

As with WTC 1 & 2, fire was not the only contributing factor to the collapse. Structural damage also played a role.

Can you please direct me to a conclusive official report that states this definitively?

The last thing I have is FEMA:

The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

 

[Moving On]

Again and again and again you've been presented with expert eyewitness accounts of the raging fires.

Tell us, right now, why they are wrong.

Ask FEMA why they disagree with the firefighters.

Ask FEMA why they didn't quote them in chapter 5.

Ask CBS why their cameras didn't record what the firefighters reported.

Please go take that walk I suggested. You're escalating.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Chipmunk,

Of course the damn building was on fire.

Was it the degree of fire to cause collapse is the question?

Russell

The number of floors burning tells us nothing about the heat energy of the fire.

Why are you arguing the "fully involved" description, when your real question is about heat to the columns?

 

[Housefly]

This "low probability" thing gets even more annoying every time I see it.

You know what else has a low probability? Winning the lottery. Are you alleging that no-one has ever won the lottery because the chances of it happening are so low?

Ever been to the bookie's? Ever seen a 100/1 horse win a race against an odds-on favourite? I have. That has a low probability of happening too.

Even a low probability is a probability. Unless you link to a document saying WTC7 couldn't possibly have collapsed due to fire and structural damage then it doesn't mean anything. Low probabilities turn out to be certainties every day.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Can you please direct me to a conclusive official report that states this definitively?

The last thing I have is FEMA:

Since you appear to be utterly hung-up on the FEMA doc, here are more recent docs:

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: 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.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

The Collapse of
World Trade Center Building 7

Figure 2 circled area shows an alleged “squib” (actually air compressed by the falling tower)
“Not so fast,” the 9/11 Truth Movement might say. How do you explain the collapse of WTC Building 7, which was not struck by an airplane? Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists maintain that the collapse of this building at about 5:20 pm on 9/11 would not have occurred unless it was already prepared for demolition. The conspiracy theorists assume that damage sustained by WTC 7 during the attack was not sufficient to trigger its collapse. The site wtc7.net claims that “fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires.” They further claim that any damage from falling debris from WTC 1 and WTC 2 would have needed to be symmetrical to trigger the pancaking collapse of WTC 7.10

These arguments only reveal the assumptions of their authors. First, the fires burning in WTC 7 were extremely extensive, as Figure 3 shows. The reason this is not obvious from 9/11 Truth Movement presentations and documentaries is that they tend to only show the north side of WTC 7, selectively causing the building to appear both far less ravaged by fire and structural damage than it actually was (see Figure 4).

Firefighter Richard Banaciski notes the difference in appearance between the north and south sides of the building in his first-person account:

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.11


Figure 3 WTC 7 seen from the Southwest side, showing the true extent of fire and structural damage
Emergency response workers at Ground Zero realized that extensive damage to the lower south section of WTC 7 would cause collapse as early as 3 pm on 9/11, a fact reported on news broadcasts at the time.12 Video footage shows that when collapse occurred, the south wall of the building gave in first, which is exactly what we would expect based on the location of the most extensive damage. As noted for the collapse of the South Tower, the mechanics of the building’s fall are completely consistent with the nature of the damage sustained. The planned demolition hypothesis, on the other hand, fails to explain why collapse would begin at exactly the point where damage was inflicted, since the conspirators would have had to been able to predict exactly where debris from the fallen North and South Towers would strike WTC 7. And while the makers of the documentary Loose Change comment that WTC 7 “fell straight down, into a convenient pile,” the truth is that the pile of debris was 12 stories high and 150 meters across, hardly the kind of “convenient pile” described by conspiracy theorists.13

For those who believe that Building 7 fell due to controlled demolition, some of the most powerful “evidence” seemingly comes from WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein’s alleged “confession” that he authorized the tower’s destruction. The quote in question comes from a September, 2002 PBS Special called America Rebuilds, in which Silverstein says:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.14


Figure 4 The image of WTC 7 commonly shown by the 9/11 Truth Movement, showing apparently minimal damage to the building
To conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones at prisonplanet.com, this quote seems to be a “smoking gun” because they interpret the phrase “pull it” to be “industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.”15 Silverstein seems to be saying that he and the firefighters decided to pull (destroy) Building 7, and watched it fall after authorizing the demolition. No building could be controllably demolished so quickly, the conspiracy theorists go on to argue, so WTC 7 must have been prepared for demolition long in advance.

On closer inspection, this supposedly devastating evidence does not seem to mean what the 9/11 Truth Movement thinks it means. There is far from unanimous industry agreement that the phrase “pull it” always signifies a controlled demolition with explosives — more specific phrases such as “pull away” would be used to designate the specific operation to be performed.16 And of course, “pull” has many common language uses quite separate from demolition lingo. But if Silverstein wasn’t describing a decision to destroy WTC 7, what could the words “pull it” mean? A good place to seek the answer is this September 9, 2005 statement by Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesperson for Larry Silverstein:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building [emphasis added].17

McQuillan’s response also indicated that firefighters were present at WTC 7 to evacuate tenants, and worked at the site until late in the afternoon shortly before the collapse occurred. There is in fact abundant evidence that firefighters were present in and around WTC 7 in evacuation and rescue missions until late in the day on 9/11. As one account describes:

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center … 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 [emphasis added] 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.18

Another first responder adds that there were “tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled [emphasis added] us out.”19 The first-hand accounts of rescue operations at WTC 7 tell a consistent story, and the latter quote also uses the word “pull” to describe the removal of firefighters from the vicinity of the building, just as McQuillan’s statement does. Indeed, there is large agreement between McQuillan’s response and the testimony of the firefighters, including the fact that:

firefighters were in fact in the vicinity of WTC 7 on 9/11;
their activities involved evacuation and rescue missions;
firefighters remained near WTC 7 until late in the afternoon of 9/11;
firefighters realized that WTC 7 would probably fall by approximately 3 pm on 9/11; and
firefighters pulled back from the building shortly after this realization, and watched the building collapse at approximately 5:20 pm. Despite the objections of conspiracy theorists, the “official story” is both logically coherent and supported by evidence.
By contrast, the story told by the 9/11 Truth Movement is riddled with holes. It assumes that Larry Silverstein destroyed WTC Building 7, presumably in order to claim a huge insurance payoff. But if this is so, why would he tell the world of his plot on a PBS special? Furthermore, what relationship does Silverstein have with the United States government who, according to conspiracy theorists, destroyed the WTC buildings in order to terrorize its citizens into accepting domination by a police state?20 And if the government controlled the demolition of the WTC buildings in order to strike fear into its citizens, why one this one case would it wait until all of the tenants were evacuated from WTC 7 so that there were no reported casualties?21 The government’s strategy appears wildly inconsistent in the Truth Movement account — killing nearly 3,000 people in the destruction of the two main towers, while allowing an entire afternoon for the tenants of WTC 7 to escape. We should also note that the alleged 9/11 plot was needlessly complicated, since the building was wired for a controlled demolition and targeted to be hit by airplanes — why not just do the controlled demolition, ditch the airplanes and blame it on the terrorists of your choice?

There’s also the problem that, as even the 9/11 Truth Movement admits, prepping a building for demolition takes considerable time and effort. Usually a building targeted for demolition has been abandoned for considerable time and partially gutted to allow explosives intimate contact with the structure of the building. But since all of the WTC buildings were occupied right up to 9/11, how did the government gain access to wire 3 towers for complete demolition without anyone noticing? Imagine trying to sneak wires and bombs into buildings while thousands of people are working in offices, riding the elevators and milling about in the halls — that scenario is unlikely in the extreme.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445990
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-3#wtc-7s-sudden-collapse
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=7_World_Trade_Center

 

[WildCat]

This time it is YOUR failure to produce evidence.

Show me the raging fires!

Ample eyewitness testimony was presented here by those who were at the scene describing the fires. You have ignored it all, an inconvenient truth Russell? Are the firemen all in on the conspiracy?

And BTW, where is the video and pics of bombs going off? Where is the eyewitness reports of bombs? Oh, that's right, there aren't any...

 

[WildCat]

Ask FEMA why they disagree with the firefighters.

You're the only one disagreeing w/ the firefighters Russell. Unless you have some that curreently believe there were bombs in the WTC buildings? You haven't produced any yet...

Ask FEMA why they didn't quote them in chapter 5.

You haven't demonstrated there are any to quote!

Ask CBS why their cameras didn't record what the firefighters reported.

Again, please produce the firefighters weho believe there were bombs in the WTC. And also ask CBS why their cameras didn't record bombs going off.

Please go take that walk I suggested. You're escalating.

Classic dodge. Russell, your options at this point are to either produce your evidence of bombs (not reports of explosions), disprove all the firefighter testimony (are they all lieing?), or run away from what you can't debate. I predict you'll do the latter.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Can you please direct me to a conclusive official report that states this definitively?

The last thing I have is FEMA:

FEMA's study is not nearly so definitive as you suggest:

5.8 Recommendations

Certain issues should be explored before final conclusions are reached and additional studies of the performance of WTC 7, and related building performance issues should be conducted. These include the following:

• Additional data should be collected to confirm the extent of the damage to the south face of the building caused by falling debris.
• Determination of the specific fuel loads, especially at the lower levels, is important to identify possible fuel supplied to sustain the fires for a substantial duration. Areas of interest include storage rooms, file rooms, spaces with high-density combustible materials, and locations of fuel lines. The control and operation of the emergency power system, including generators and storage tanks, needs to be thoroughly understood. Specifically, the ability of the diesel fuel pumps to continue to operate and send fuel to the upper floors after a fuel line is severed should be confirmed.
• Modeling and analysis of the interaction between the fires and structural members are important. Specifically, the anticipated temperatures and duration of the fires and the effects of the fires on the structure need to be examined, with an emphasis on the behavior of transfer systems and their connections.
• Suggested mechanisms for a progressive collapse should be studied and confirmed. How the collapse of an unknown number of gravity columns brought down the whole building must be explained.
• The role of the axial capacity between the beam-column connection and the relatively strong structural diaphragms may have had in the progressive collapse should be explained.
• The level of fire resistance and the ratio of capacity-to-demand required for structural members and connections deemed to be critical to the performance of the building should be studied. The collapse of some structural members and connections may be more detrimental to the overall performance of the building than other structural members. The adequacy of current design provisions for members whose failure could result in large-scale collapse should also be studied.

NIST's current working hypothesis is based on substantially more in-depth analysis and is unlikely to change significantly before the report is completed:

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster(Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

�� An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

�� Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

�� Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors)resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation.

Based on the current hypothesis, the initial failure was local, meaning one critical column at one point. The hypothesis says this was caused by "fire and/or debris-induced structural damage." However widespread the fire was, the only part of it that mattered in terms of the collapse was the fire on the lower floors contributing to the column failure.

Why do you ignore the work that has been done since May 2002?

 

[Moving On]

NIST:

If it remains viable upon further analysis, the working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 suggests that it was a classic progressive collapse.....​

that.......​

"Disproportionate global collapse - Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf

You can read about that here:

At this blast intensity, the resulting blast damage would be termed global collapse rather than progressive collapse. This approach may be easily applied to existing structures and new construction alike.​

Issues Regarding Progressive Collapse​

Progressive Collapse must not be confused with global collapse of structural systems. Blast induced base shears may create a condition in which excessive building drifts or large internal stresses result in a global instability,​

http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&...gn%20to%20resist%20progressive%20collapse.pdf

 

[Moving On]

Since you appear to be utterly hung-up on the FEMA doc, here are more recent docs:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445990
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-3#wtc-7s-sudden-collapse
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=7_World_Trade_Center

Can you please narrow that down to just definitive official sources please as I requested.

Popular Mechanics doesn't count. They have had serious documented errors. I sent them 4 on a recent article documented beyond reproach and they refuse to retract.

Anti-9/11 truth websites don't count either.

I would just like a quote from an official report that clearly states that WTC 7 collapse was directly caused by non fire induced structural damage.

Thank you!

 

[Moving On]

Ample eyewitness testimony was presented here by those who were at the scene describing the fires. You have ignored it all, an inconvenient truth Russell? Are the firemen all in on the conspiracy?

And BTW, where is the video and pics of bombs going off? Where is the eyewitness reports of bombs? Oh, that's right, there aren't any...

Actually there are two of each recorded.

Two eyewitnesses that report explosions and two actual recordings of explosions as well.

Try to stay current on the topic please - it expedites the conversation.

EXPLOSIONS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2vFX8WKkEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus

TESTIMONY:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8To3cX9Mudw (5:10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVdnFFNbPK8 (1:22)

 

[Gravy]

Again and again and again you've been presented with expert eyewitness accounts of the raging fires.

Tell us, right now, why they are wrong.

Ask FEMA why they disagree with the firefighters.

Ask FEMA why they didn't quote them in chapter 5.

Ask CBS why their cameras didn't record what the firefighters reported.

Please go take that walk I suggested. You're escalating.

No, ex-firefighter Pickering, I'm demanding that YOU support YOUR claims.

You accused me of cherry-picking information. I provided links to over 200 quotes from FDNY eyewitnesses about building 7's condition.

You can't provide a single quote from an FDNY witness who disagrees.

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 magazine, 10/2002

In another interview, Chief Nigro says,

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] 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, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely." http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y

Let's go, Russell. Time to stop running. Tell us why the FDNY experts, who you call "the best," are wrong.

 

[chipmunk stew]

NIST:



You can read about that here:

Disproportionate global collapse - Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure

In this quote, the author was clearly using the word "global" to refer to "the entire structure". The key word, consistent with the idea of progressive collapse, is "disproportionate". It means that localized failure results in widespread damage due to progressive failures triggered by the localized failure (initiating event).

What is the point you were making with these quotes?

 

[Kent1]

SUMMARY:

1) No photos of significant fires.

2) No video of 47 stories fully involved.

3) No mention of 47 floors of fully involved fire in FEMA. (If that was the case don't you think the FEMA report would have been easy to write?)

4) A scientific explanation for the circulation of the smoke related to the unventilated fuel fires that FEMA did mention.

5) In relation to the fuel fires FEMA said, "Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

You guys should just stop. It is looking bad.

1. Disagree
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/wtc7fire1.jpg
(However this was not a critical floor)
2. Valid point. But I could care less.
3. Agree, although Russell should also look at NIST
4. Valid point
5. I agree as a TOTAL diesel fuel hypothesis clearly has a low probability of occurrence.
I would suggest also reading this http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf

 

[MRC_Hans]

Can you please narrow that down to just definitive official sources please as I requested.

Popular Mechanics doesn't count. They have had serious documented errors. I sent them 4 on a recent article documented beyond reproach and they refuse to retract.

Interesting.

So your position is that if a source has been shown to have a certain number of documented errors, it is generally disqualified? Please confirm this and that the critical number is 4 or less.

Anti-9/11 truth websites don't count either.

Oh? Do 9/11 truth websites count? And if yes, why the double standard?

I would just like a quote from an official report that clearly states that WTC 7 collapse was directly caused by non fire induced structural damage.

Why would you like that, considering this is not the official claim?

Hans

 

[Moving On]

It's good that NIST will be doing the following things:

1) Investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios

1. 
   [*]Phase 1 Identify hypothetical blast scenarios and materials, based on analysis and/or experience, for failing specified columns by direct attachment methods. Preliminary section cutting shall be considered. Compare estimated overpressures for each scenario against windowstrength.
2. Phase II For blast scenarios with overpressures that clearly would not have broken windows, the worst case scenario(s) will be analyzed using SHAMRC software to determine overpressures at windows.
3. Phase III If Phase II overpressures did not clearly fail windows, 3 blast scenarios will be selected to determine the sound levels that would be transmitted outside the building through intact windows.

2) Developed maps of probable fire locations from 11:30 am to 5:30 pm based on very limited photos and videos –less than 1 % of those of the towers and non-continuous, especially lacking on the south face.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf

It doesn't seem like number two would be so hard if all 47 stories were fully involved. Who knows?

I know there are photos being suppressed which might be why they are scarce.

PM: …We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate….

CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can't see them.

PM: Correct.

CG: Well, that's a fine kettle of fish, isn't it? ….What did you see there that I can't see?

PM: Just what was described
.
CG: Well it must be something that's dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You're publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they've done the worst possible thing, they've shown it to a damn magazine publisher!

PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.

CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn't know we had different classes of citizens. You can't tell me it's because it's a criminal case because they've shown it to a damn magazine publisher.
PM: ….I can't answer that question.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060826165457842

It's just too bad the report keeps getting delayed.

I have to go for a while. You guys try and find a way out of all this documentation and I will check on your progress later.

 

[Moving On]

Gravy,

I just caught your post.

Please refrain from demanding anything from me. It just creates an inner resistance within me that is likely to even further delay my response.

You'll have to wait for my WTC 7 review of your piece. I will highlight some of the data you left out of it from the same documents you used.

Can you quit using firefighters to hide behind? You know nothing of the profession and it looks silly.

Have you interviewed any of them personally?

Does it make me seem less important when you emphasise my past occupation? Sometimes it's a bummer for me since I moved on due to an injury.

You can do it if you want, but it makes you look desperate.

Thanks,
Russell

 

[Belz...]

If my word on the history of collapses due to fire is not enough lets review what FEMA says. This is just some of the stuff Gravy leaves out of his cherry picked articles.

You should be excited to know I am working on a WTC 7 piece to show you all of the stuff Gravy left out of the spoon fed info you received. You shouldn't be so dependent on one person!

The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

It was also the first time a 110-storey, flaming building fell on a large fire-protected steel building.

 

[Moving On]

1. Disagree
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/wtc7fire1.jpg
(However this was not a critical floor)
2. Valid point. But I could care less.
3. Agree, although Russell should also look at NIST
4. Valid point
5. I agree as a TOTAL diesel fuel hypothesis clearly has a low probability of occurrence.
I would suggest also reading this http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf

Just so you know, you are the only respectable person here and I appreciate your documentation!

You should help Gravy.

 

[Kent1]

It's good that NIST will be doing the following things:

It doesn't seem like number two would be so hard if all 47 stories were fully involved. Who knows?

I know there are photos being suppressed which might be why they are scarce.

They also mention those new photos in their Oct. update. I can't wait to see them.