9/11 and building 7

I found it funny recently about how if no Firemen operations were being conducted in World Trade Center 7 to stop the fire, why would he pull an invisible fire team? And why would it be his choice anyways?

You can twist it, confuse it and do anything you choose to try and justify that he was talking about a fire operation but Larry Silverstein has no say in the matters of fire fighting and considering there was no fire operation going on...

Originally posted by HowardRoark
2PacSade, I know you are new here, but it really doesn't help to spam the board with a bunch of images.

Most of us here have seen and are familiar with those images you have posted.

I can guess where you are trying to go with in that post, and my response is this:

Can you detail the specific similarities and differences in the design and construction ofeach of those buildings? How are the the same or different from the WTC buildings.

If you want to compare them, you have to be prepared to defend that comparison.

I won't post anything except the url in case you've seen this before. Again I think it shows the towers were more robust. I'll try to locate specific plans, but it won't matter because there will be nothing to compare them to as the WTC construction plans are locked up. . .

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

In reference to at least one of the towers, Frank Demartini (WTC project and construction manager) left his office with two colleagues to assess the damage to the tower and help people get out. He was in communication up until the time the tower collapsed, he was reporting that from what he was seeing of the damage (including some of the trusses exposed by the impact) that the building was in danger of a collapse.

Hmmm.....one of the men most knowledgeable about the towers and their construction, was concerned that the tower was going to collapse..............not because of a bomb, but because of the impact damage and the fires.

Of course, very few people remember this or the fact that he helped dozens of people escape that day, they remember an interview he gave for a special that has been used as "evidence" that the towers were demolished by explosives.

In reference to at least one of the towers, Frank Demartini (WTC project and construction manager) left his office with two colleagues to assess the damage to the tower and help people get out. He was in communication up until the time the tower collapsed, he was reporting that from what he was seeing of the damage (including some of the trusses exposed by the impact) that the building was in danger of a collapse.

Hmmm.....one of the men most knowledgeable about the towers and their construction, was concerned that the tower was going to collapse..............not because of a bomb, but because of the impact damage and the fires.

Of course, very few people remember this or the fact that he helped dozens of people escape that day, they remember an interview he gave for a special that has been used as "evidence" that the towers were demolished by explosives.

Do you have a source for that, Swampfox? Just curious, especially as to exactly who Demartini would have been in "communication" with and how, and whether or not he meant a global collapse.

Keep in mind that prior to 9/11, skyscrapers did not fully collapse from fires -- ever. Never, ever, ever, had this happened, or did anyone ever expect it to happen. And this man said himself that the buildings could sustain several impacts and it would not effect the overall structure. He never said anything about it not causing local collapses, which HAD occurred in previous skyscraper fires. So if he were to ever expect a collapse, I don't see how he could possibly have expected what actually happened, globally, considering there was absolutely ZERO precedent for it.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by bsbray11]

Do you have a source for that, Swampfox? Just curious, especially as to exactly who Demartini would have been in "communication" with and how, and whether or not he meant a global collapse

A source you would accept? No. Because I learned long ago, the NYFD isnt an acceptable source on this board. Demartini was in radio contact on the NYFD net as he climbed higher in the tower and examined the damage. Yes, he did give an interview in which he stated his opinion that the towers could withstand the impact of several jetliners....and he was wrong. Of course, so were the people who claimed the Titanic was unsinkable, the Bismarck was invulnerable and the Third Reich would last 1,000 years. In other words, people arent perfect and tend to make claims that dont last.

Keep in mind that prior to 9/11, skyscrapers did not fully collapse from fires -- ever. Never, ever, ever, had this happened, or did anyone ever expect it to happen

And this means what? NOTHING. Of course none of the buildings that collapsed on 9/11 collapsed solely because of fire. They collapsed due to severe damage (in the Towers case, two airliners slamming into them, in WTC 7's case, WTC 1 falling into it) and the fires.

I think you over-dramaticize how much WTC 7 was affected by the debris from WTC 1.

And if YOU want to hold true with what the NYPD, then what about the explosions they heard prior to collapse?

Link 1
Link 2

I'd still like a source, Swampfox, so I can see exactly what was stated.

I keep seeing this assertion that plane impacts (>15% columns taken out) + fires (no evidence of ANYTHING but a handful of buckled perimeter columns per floor) = collapse, when the perimeter columns alone were supposed to be 5 times redundant. When is anyone going to finally prove this, if it's so freaking obvious?

I just kind of skimmed over the posts in this thread, and it seems that there is a belief it was an insider's job. I don't know if it's been suggested before (if it has, I agree), but I believe that bldg. 7 was occupied by terrorists wanting to hamper any effort to lend assistance to the strikes. Once recognized, it had to be eliminated. There would be many reasons this would be kept secret, because I'd imagine there were many hostages, whom very unfortunately would have been within the destruction.

If I recall, there were some vehicles with an unknown configuration seen moving in a general direction, then the press and media were told to move into another "safer" area.

Would I necessarily blame anyone if this were true. No.
Would others, most certainly.

This may be lumped up as conjecture, but the point that should stand out is we were attacked. There method was to create mass panick. I can think of few ways where this would be better achieved than to cause discord during rescue efforts.

Originally posted by Masisoar
And if YOU want to hold true with what the NYPD, then what about the explosions they heard prior to collapse?
Link 2

As the same NYFD would without doubts tell you there is a plenty of things exploding in a burning building aven without bombs

Tuccy, do you need more sources?

Edit: Happy Birthday! Here ya go:

Link 1 - Popular video of firefighters explaining what they saw. (That clip, in the more extended version, you notice camera shaking, followed by billows of smoke just pouring out of the building, not from already going fires)
Link 2 - "There's a bomb in the building, start clearing out." "We got a secondary device."
Link 3 - I think the distinct sounds of what appears to be explosions are pretty significant as they stand our rather than "just the roar" from the building falling. So now, when you can hear distinct sounds, it's not the building coming down.
Link 4 - Some more testimonies from firefighters.
Link 5 - Just a few more interesting testimonies.


[edit on 9/6/2006 by Masisoar]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
In reference to at least one of the towers, Frank Demartini (WTC project and construction manager) left his office with two colleagues to assess the damage to the tower and help people get out. He was in communication up until the time the tower collapsed, he was reporting that from what he was seeing of the damage (including some of the trusses exposed by the impact) that the building was in danger of a collapse.

Can you find me direct quotes about this? I've heard this speculation before but haven't really seen anything to back it up. Thanks.

Originally posted by Masisoar
I found it funny recently about how if no Firemen operations were being conducted in World Trade Center 7 to stop the fire, why would he pull an invisible fire team? And why would it be his choice anyways?

You can twist it, confuse it and do anything you choose to try and justify that he was talking about a fire operation but Larry Silverstein has no say in the matters of fire fighting and considering there was no fire operation going on...

There were firemen AROUND the building and there were being made preparations before they were called off.
Collapsing building doesn't threaten just its occupants.

EDIT: Re another post, are you aware there was also rumored to be a car bomb at the office of Secretary of State and several more hijacked airplanes and bomb was already used in the WTC in its history so there might have been fear that it's somewhere there again. Even an igellite bag left on the train station is sometimes enough to cause bomb alarm. Even when there are no explosions from the fire.
Plus, again, explosion doesn't equal bomb. And you'd be surprised how often do people (even trained ones) describe a sudden loud noise using expression "sounded like a bomb going off".


[edit on 6-9-2006 by tuccy]

How did they know it was going to collapse then if they were just around it. Were there teams in there checking out the fires? If so then that contradicts itself then now doesn't it. If there obviously was not a fire operation going on to stop the fires in the building, how could they possibly know the extent of the damage and realize it was going to collapse.

Edit: Tuccy, yes, your second paragraph CLEARLY dissolves my whole argument about the fireman and their different accounts. Are you focusing on all their accounts or just a select few?




[edit on 9/6/2006 by Masisoar]

reply to post by STR


"They don't have to tilt to collapse assymetrically, because the buildings themselves weren't symetric. The north side of Tower 1 was not the same as the east side. Why? Mostly because of Tower 2. The wind would deflect off one building into the other, or the other building would shelter the other. Such effects could be calculated with good precision using the computers, wind tunnels and formulas of the 1960's."

Depends on what part of the building you are looking at!!! The perimeter was 208 ft. x 208 ft. The cores of both buildings were also the same. Just they faced different directions and were not symmetrical. But again the plane crashed into the buildings different. The way the planes crashed in conjunction with the relative orientation of the core. But both buildings despite load differences and core orientation to crash came down exactly the same way. Can you explain why they both fell symmetrically and argue your point in contrast with the differences that I just stated?

[edit on 28-4-2010 by cronicblazer]