Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

Miragememories said:
Just because they put a transit on WTC7 does not mean that it was leaning.
Click to expand...

The transit doesn't mean it was leaning.

The fact that it was leaning does, however, mean that it was leaning.

Firehouse Magazine: April 2002
WTC: This Is Their Story
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Deputy Chief Peter 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."
Click to expand...

___

Miragememories said:
I am quite sure that if it had been leaning the NIST would have leaped
on the news.
Click to expand...

Are you really, really sure?

NIST NCSTAR1-9 v1 pg 300
When a Chief Officer got to Barclay Street and West Broadway, numerous firefighters and officers were exiting WTC 7. These firefighters indicated that several blocks needed to be cleared around WTC 7 because they thought that the building was going to collapse.12 In addition, there were numerousobservations reported by other emergency responders who indicated that WTC 7 was considerably damaged by the collapse of WTC 1, and the potential for collapse of WTC 7 was taken seriously by these FDNY personnel. First-person interviews conducted by the news media, NIST, and FDNY communications recordings provide additional information on the building conditions, damage assessment, and emergency response operations at the scene. See the following statements:

• “There was a 10-story gash in the side of building 7. The southwest corner was taken out when Tower 1 came down.”24

• “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 [WTC 7] was going to collapse.”25

• “…you could see the structural members, literally 10 floors, were taken out. The corners were taken out.”26

• “You could see where the north tower was and we looked back at 7 WTC, it looked like someone ripped a big gouge out of the building. It looked like a big chunk of it was torn out right here in this corner, ripped right out, the south west corner. Yes, and I remember when the dust cleared and I looked back at 7 WTC, there was a huge gouge.”27

• “We went to Vesey and Greenwich and didn’t see any damage on the north and east sides of WTC 7. When we looked on the south side of WTC 7, there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.”28

• “We went out and around Building 6, down to the parking garage and to Vesey Street. We walked west. There was a 40-foot-high pile of steel in the street after Tower 1 collapsed.” “The fire had entered building 7. Fire was visible in 30 windows spread across four of the lower floors.”29
Click to expand...


References:
24 Firehouse Magazine, July 2002, p. 46, Chief Mark Ferran, Battalion 12.
25 Firehouse Magazine, April 2002, p. 97, Deputy Chief Peter Hayden.
26 Firehouse Magazine, July 2002, p. 62, Lieutenant Pete Lund, Rescue 2.
27 FDNY Interview 9, winter 2004.
28 Firehouse Magazine, August 2002, pp. 90-92, Captain Chris Boyle, Engine 94.
29 Firehouse Magazine, July 2002, p. 60, Lieutenant Glenn Rohan, Ladder 48.


tom
 
jaydeehess said:
"So I ask again, what possible gain would there be in 'planting' a report suggestive of WTC 7 collapsing when in mere minutes it will be revealed to all whether or not WTC 7 is still standing?"
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension is very poor but you have terrific tunnel vision.

It is called planting the story.

The Germans mastered it in the 1930's.

I'll bet you are a Harper supporter.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Where did I say they were lying?

That is such a favorite OCTer tactic; make it sound like the FDNY
is being slammed by the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The only disrespect I see, comes from people like yourself who use the FDNY as pawns for your pathetic slurs.

MM
Click to expand...

Right here:

MM said:
Just because they put a transit on WTC7 does not mean that it was leaning.

I am quite sure that if it had been leaning the NIST would have leaped
on the news.

Like I said, "the loss of seven exterior columns certainly would not cause the whole structure to lean."
Click to expand...

So, they put a transit on it amd said it was leaning, yet you are saying they are incorrect. So, were they lying or are they just exaggerating this too?

It is your disrespect to the FDNY in multiple threads that is pathetic. No need to try and deflect onto me, as everyone reading the thread can see what you are trying (and failing) to do.
 
tfk said:
Ever considered that perhaps he thought that only 50 stories of one of the towers went down? (Instead of the whole thing.)

The timing is right.
Click to expand...
At 10:45 a.m.?

Yes it's right for a WTC7 collapse under cover of the WTC1 dust cloud.

gjswtc40rdu8.jpg


MM
 
Miragememories said:
At 10:45 a.m.?

Yes it's right for a WTC7 collapse under cover of the WTC1 dust cloud.

gjswtc40rdu8.jpg


MM
Click to expand...

It seems you missed GlennB's post somewhere back. Or not. But just in case, here it is again:


GlennB said:
You're missing the point, which is that if it had been successfully demolished they also had a big problem :

wtc7gettinghitcropped.jpg


because the impact damage was nothing like enough to explain the collapse of such a building.

Oh, and I'm not sure why you chose such a poor angle to show the dust cloud around WTC7. This makes things much clearer :

wtc7industcloud.jpg


The building was visible for a good long time (was it ever fully obscured when viewed from the helicopter?)

More to the point - why? What could possibly be gained from this wildly unpredictable and totally transparent plan?
Click to expand...
 
jaydeehess said:
Have you or have yu not opined that the FF who spoke to Dodds was passing dis-information concerning 50 storeys of a structure falling?

Either he did see this occur or he did not but is saying he did.
We absolutly know that no 50 storey structure did collapse so the choice is either he was referring to 50 storeys of a structure that did fall(WTC 1 or 2) OR he is lieing.

You choose!
Click to expand...
Choice No.4.

He was misinformed.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Your reading comprehension is very poor but you have terrific tunnel vision.

It is called planting the story.
Click to expand...

planting what? A story that WTC 7 has succumnbed to thefall of WTC 1 when in a few minutes this will, at least as planned supposedly, it will be about as obvious as anything ever could be that WTC 7 had collapsed?

I ask again what gain is there in this , so far all you do is repeat that its planting the story and you refuse to acknowledge even that if your senario were correct then minutes after this 'planting' it would have been quite obvious given the loss of WTC 7's sillouette on the skyline.


The Germans mastered it in the 1930's.
Click to expand...

Give me a relevent example

I'll bet you are a Harper supporter.

MM
Click to expand...

You'd lose.
 
the FF was referring to 50 storeys of a structure that did collapse
OR
passing on information as a first hand account when it was actually information given to him
OR
passing on information as a first hand account knowing full well that it was not true.

Pick MM, come on, pick one
 
jaydeehess said:
If a competant technician uses a transit and determines that a structure is leaning, is it in fact leaning?
Click to expand...

The use of such a tool is not proof of anything.

Given all the bs about the imminent collapse of WTC7, I would not
be surprised if they covered it with transits like decorating a Christmas tree.

The NIST does not indicate in their final summary that they found any evidence that WTC7 was leaning prior to collapse initiation.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
The use of such a tool is not proof of anything.

Given all the bs about the imminent collapse of WTC7, I would not
be surprised if they covered it with transits like decorating a Christmas tree.

The NIST does not indicate in their final summary that they found any evidence that WTC7 was leaning prior to collapse initiation.

MM
Click to expand...

Why are you relying on NIST if you do not believe it anyway? Do you believe the firefighters who were at the scene and said it was leaning or not? If not, why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom