• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mayor Giuliani warning about the collapses

Let's say, purely for the sake of discussion, that Silverstein meant "demolish the building" when he said "pull it". A decision to "pull it" does not necessarily mean "immediately demolish the building". He could easily have meant "write the building off as a loss and let it burn down".

In the context of the statements Silverstein made, it is not apparent or obvious that he meant "immediately demolish the building". What is obvious is that the decision to "pull it" was made out of concern for the safety and lives of the people trying to put out the fires.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

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.
 
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.
Actually, believe it or not, the original designers did consider the case of a 707 at speed. Look at NCSTAR1-1, section 5.1.4, page number 70 (bottom of page 130 in the PDF viewer). But note, however, the brevity of their calculation. Somewhere the three-page letter itself referenced in Footnote 22 is online too, but I can't find it at the moment.

Anyway, the structure could handle the impact of a 707 at speed without toppling, that's what they concluded. But in 1964, without the Towers even built, there's no way they could do a more in-depth analysis. Surely no consideration was possible for the resulting fire.

As for multiple impacts, no rigorous study was ever done. This brief back-of-envelope estimate is it.

Also, they were 767's, not 747s. 747's are quite a bit larger still and would probably have brought the towers down much quicker. (Certainly not any slower.)
 
Mark Loizeaux actually predicted which building would fall first, because the second building hit had more weight above the impact zone.
 
Mark Loizeaux actually predicted which building would fall first, because the second building hit had more weight above the impact zone.


Makes perfectly good sense to me. Alas, I'm not imaginative enough to put a CT spin on it.

M.
 
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. :eek:

kc440

You forgot to mention that it came down faster than the speed of gravity!:p
 
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.

Here's a YouTube video of the quote.
 
Please quote Silverstein correctly. Consistently the word "then" is cleansed from the quote. Here'e the correct quote, the word "then" shows causal connection between what is said before, and what is said after.

Quote:
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 then we watched the building collapse.
 
Please quote Silverstein correctly. Consistently the word "then" is cleansed from the quote. Here'e the correct quote, the word "then" shows causal connection between what is said before, and what is said after.

Silverstein's Quote:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"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."

He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt

Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was 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, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt

"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. 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. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html

This proves there was a big hole on the south side of the building. From the photographic evidence and these quotes which aren't meant to be technical, I suspect there was a large hole in the center of the building which may have gone up 10 stories connected to a large rip on the left side of the building which continued up another 10 or more stories. Together they would make "a hole 20 stories tall".

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.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html

It mirrors what Silverstein said.

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html
source
 
Arkan,

So you're saying that the government had disinfo agents working inside various fire departments, and these agents started spreading rumors after WTC 1 and 2 collapsed (via communications networks used by fire departments) that WTC7 was going to collapse due to fire so that when WTC7 actually collapsed from the explosive devices put in place by controlled demolition experts, while the building was heavily involved by fire, skeptics would have some manufactured evidence to show the world that it wasn't an inside job when it really was? Holy Crap! That's just bonkers! :jaw-dropp

(Try reading this post while holding your breath. Makes a great drinking game!)
 
Last edited:
Please quote Silverstein correctly. Consistently the word "then" is cleansed from the quote. Here'e the correct quote, the word "then" shows causal connection between what is said before, and what is said after.

You really are that ignorant. Is English a second language?

"I went to work, then I went out to get a pizza."

"I washed the dog, then I watched TV and drank a beer."

"I went to the store, then I painted the house."

The word "then" does NOT imply any sort of causality, unless you live in a world where your desperate to twist anything you can to make sure you can still claim you're right. The word "then" implies nothing more than a temporal sequence...the prior event occured before the second event. In other words, the above examples could be re-written as:

"I went to work before I went out to get a pizza."
"I went out to get a pizza after I went to work."

"I washed the dog before I watched TV and drank a beer."
"I watched TV abd drank a beer after I washed the dog."

"I went to the store before I painted the house."
"I painted the house after I went to the store."

"They made the decision to pull before we watched the collapse."
"We watched the collapse after they made the decision to pull."
 
You really are that ignorant. Is English a second language?

"I went to work, then I went out to get a pizza."

"I washed the dog, then I watched TV and drank a beer."

"I went to the store, then I painted the house."

The word "then" does NOT imply any sort of causality, unless you live in a world where your desperate to twist anything you can to make sure you can still claim you're right. The word "then" implies nothing more than a temporal sequence...the prior event occured before the second event. In other words, the above examples could be re-written as:

"I went to work before I went out to get a pizza."
"I went out to get a pizza after I went to work."

"I washed the dog before I watched TV and drank a beer."
"I watched TV abd drank a beer after I washed the dog."

"I went to the store before I painted the house."
"I painted the house after I went to the store."

"They made the decision to pull before we watched the collapse."
"We watched the collapse after they made the decision to pull."

The last one, or the original quote, could be read as "They made the decision to pull, then (all we could do was watch) the building collapse"
 
Last edited:
The last one, or the original quote, could be read as "They made the decision to pull, then (all we could do was watch) the building collapse"
But CTist read it as

"They made the decision to pull, then (the explosives and thermite kicked in and we watched) the building collapse"

Is there any money in CT? Does the amount include what I get to sell my soul?

Always trying to keep my career opportunities open.
 
But CTist read it as

"They made the decision to pull, then (the explosives and thermite kicked in and we watched) the building collapse"

Is there any money in CT? Does the amount include what I get to sell my soul? Always trying to keep my career opportunities open.

I'm outta luck, sadly. I already sold my soul back in '92 for ten bucks and a bottle of Jack.

I might be able to repo it, though, and sell it again. I bet I could talk it up to $20 this time.
 
Why do these CT nutters keep posting all the same crap in each and every single thread?
 

Back
Top Bottom