Correct me if I'm wrong... (WTC 7)

(I will keep both parts short because everyone in here "knows" what the deal is all about).

Ok, conspiracy theory: WTC 7 was blown up by the means of controlled demolition. The reason for it: institutions were situated in there that were on to something concerning illegal trading conducted by very powerful forces within the state.

Then, official story: Debree from WTC 1/2 fell onto WTC 7, ripping a hole through the entire building into the basement and setting a huge tank of dieselfuel on fire. This fire then made the building collapse.

But then I read the following from the offical report that most of the diesel fuel was recovered and that the public should not worry about any enviromental damage cause by the above mentioned. (Summary of diesel oil recovery and spillage, Rommel 2002)

I don't know where to begin listing all that does not make sense about this. This whole WTC-deal makes me confused to the degree of insomnia.

It would be nice if some of you die-hard sceptics would tell me what the deal is all about. Why first say that diesel fuel made the buliding collapse and then say most of the diesel fuel is recovered?

I was not there and I do not have inside information so I am left to theorize about the whole deal, something I fint utterly unsatisfying.

The causes of the whole 9-11 event is one thing, I have that as clear as it gets, but that is another thread. But this single issue is bothering me.

Hi Raud....

WTC7 is the Holy Grail of the Conspiracy Theories for 911...This is the building that collapsed without the assistance of a plane smashing into it a 500MPH. So, you will often hear..This was the first steel building ever to collaspe due to "JUST a fire."

Lack of photographic evidence has added fuel to the fire. Most pictures of WTC7 show small fires. What CT websites don't tell you is that these pictures were taken shortly after the collaspe of the towers.

Truth is, all firefighters that were "debriefed" or interviewed reported that the fires were raging on MANY floors. These fires were started from the debris from Tower one the tore into WTC7. Several witnesses reported a gash in the building 20 stories high.

There is a report that is due out pretty soon from NIST on the collaspe of WTC7. I'm sure everyone will have a field day with it once it is released.

As far as I can comprehend, the diesel tanks (that were recovered) were in the basement (?) for emergency power. The diesel lines that they are talking about that spread the fire where not the same diesel used in the emergency tanks. Is that correct?

If it is, then you can still have recovered tanks along with the statement that diesel helped spread the fire. Hope that helps and I hope that I'm right in my assumptions.

Originally posted by CameronFox

Truth is, all firefighters that were "debriefed" or interviewed reported that the fires were raging on MANY floors. These fires were started from the debris from Tower one the tore into WTC7. Several witnesses reported a gash in the building 20 stories high.

Can you give me a source for "All the firefighters that were 'debriefed' reported fires raging on MANY floors"?

I believe part of what NIST is looking into is: How much disel was in these tanks prior to 911. Honestly, I havent looked too much into this..so I don't want to speculate.

All i know is that the WTC 7 building looked as if it was demolished using implosion techniques. You can even watch videos of it on google. It falls with the famous 'bow' in the middle...

my 2 cents

Originally posted by 11Bravo

Originally posted by CameronFox

Truth is, all firefighters that were "debriefed" or interviewed reported that the fires were raging on MANY floors. These fires were started from the debris from Tower one the tore into WTC7. Several witnesses reported a gash in the building 20 stories high.

Can you give me a source for "All the firefighters that were 'debriefed' reported fires raging on MANY floors"?

Would you like me to post all the interviews?

Maybe I should rephrase that...

Of all of the interviews or debriefings I have read.... ALL of them reported large fires burning. Not ONE said the fires were small.

I have read I would guess around 60 different interviews. Most from firemen..some from EMT's, police officers, and a couple journalists.

Originally posted by capsitan
All i know is that the WTC 7 building looked as if it was demolished using implosion techniques. You can even watch videos of it on google. It falls with the famous 'bow' in the middle...

my 2 cents

Capsitian....looks like maybe...but there were Demolition Crews on the scene.

This is a 12 page document that offers some very useful information from an orgainization that was there on 911 that actually PERFORMS Controlled Demolitions.

www.implosionworld.com...

Originally posted by CameronFox


Would you like me to post all the interviews?

Maybe I should rephrase that...

Of all of the interviews or debriefings I have read....

No Cam, I dont want you to post all the interviews, but I sure would like to read what you did, if you could be so kind as to give me a link.
I have spent a fair amount of time researching 9/11, and along the way I have collected quite a number of links to valuble information. I would like to add your information to my collection, but I need a source please.

BTW, not to be a Cheney, but if you are going to make a statement like
"Truth is, all firefighters...." You need to either show some evidence, or not use the phrase 'Truth is'.

Originally posted by capsitan
All i know is that the WTC 7 building looked as if it was demolished using implosion techniques. You can even watch videos of it on google. It falls with the famous 'bow' in the middle...

my 2 cents

Quick clip of the 'collapse' of the WTC 7 building, it's honestly no wonder there are so many conspiracies about 9/11 after seeing this dubious footage.

WTC 7 'Collapse'

Do you guys remember that interview with the owner of WTC 7?? I will try to paraphrase what he said. "there had already been so many deaths that i decided the best thing to do was pull it". I think that speaks for itself.
I almost think that it might have been a freudian slip on his part.



[edit on 12-1-2007 by capsitan]

Originally posted by 11Bravo
BTW, not to be a Cheney, but if you are going to make a statement like
"Truth is, all firefighters...." You need to either show some evidence, or not use the phrase 'Truth is'.

I agree thats why I rephrased it. Here are several links to different interviews:

Firefighter Richard Banaciski :
graphics8.nytimes.com...

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
graphics8.nytimes.com...

...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
graphics8.nytimes.com...

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. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to
rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing
with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7.
It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

www.firehouse.com...

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)

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.
graphics8.nytimes.com...

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 Massagraphics8.nytimes.com...

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
www.thememoryhole.org... 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. www.thememoryhole.org... page 49

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
graphics8.nytimes.com...

I have links that have eyewitness accounts of the damage and debris around WTC7 if anyone is interested.

I hope this helps.

Originally posted by capsitan
Do you guys remember that interview with the owner of WTC 7?? I will try to paraphrase what he said. "there had already been so many deaths that i decided the best thing to do was pull it". I think that speaks for itself.
I almost think that it might have been a freudian slip on his part.

Good Grief ... here we go again with the pull it quote this is so often MISS quoted.

Capsitan...I don't want to go into again. Most CT'ers have abandoned this claim. (at least the ones with common sence)

for what its worth.

I have heard a theory about this building collapsing due to the "mini-earthquake" or shaking of the ground from when the other 2 buildings fell... Kind of makes sense but that is not what the official story implies...

Originally posted by CameronFox
This is a 12 page document that offers some very useful information from an orgainization that was there on 911 that actually PERFORMS Controlled Demolitions.

www.implosionworld.com...

Why would Implosion World be there on 9/11? There was no need to demolish any buildings until later because of the search and rescue, so why have them there on 9/11?

Originally posted by CameronFox

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
www.thememoryhole.org... page 48.

Most of your quotes from firemen say that the building was ablaze and imminent collapse was probable or foretold by the fire chiefs. My question is, why were all these firemen and firechiefs expecting a collapse when no other steel skyscraper had collapsed due to fire before that day? Where they psychic?

Originally posted by CameronFox
Good Grief ... here we go again with the pull it quote this is so often MISS quoted.

Capsitan...I don't want to go into again. Most CT'ers have abandoned this claim. (at least the ones with common sence)

I'd like to say my theory on this quote again. I think the fire chief did call Silverstein but I don't think what Silverstein said in the interview is how it went down. In the interview, Silverstein makes it sound like he was the hero by saying he was the one to suggest pulling the firefighters back. Now, this wouldn't happen in real life. A courtesy call probably took place where the chief said they couldn't control the fire and were pulling their men off the building to let it burn. But, in the interview Larry wanted to look like the important one (hero) to the American public and said it was partly his desision and all. Just my take on why he said what he did.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CameronFox
Good Grief ... here we go again with the pull it quote this is so often MISS quoted.

Capsitan...I don't want to go into again. Most CT'ers have abandoned this claim. (at least the ones with common sence)

I'd like to say my theory on this quote again. I think the fire chief did call Silverstein but I don't think what Silverstein said in the interview is how it went down. In the interview, Silverstein makes it sound like he was the hero by saying he was the one to suggest pulling the firefighters back. Now, this wouldn't happen in real life. A courtesy call probably took place where the chief said they couldn't control the fire and were pulling their men off the building to let it burn. But, in the interview Larry wanted to look like the important one (hero) to the American public and said it was partly his desision and all. Just my take on why he said what he did.

Sure is a possibility. I can see him doing that.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CameronFox
This is a 12 page document that offers some very useful information from an orgainization that was there on 911 that actually PERFORMS Controlled Demolitions.

www.implosionworld.com...

Why would Implosion World be there on 9/11? There was no need to demolish any buildings until later because of the search and rescue, so why have them there on 9/11?

I guess you didn't read the article. They actually were in two different areas i think one in manhattan. Anytime heavy construction is being done in a city, it is important to set up field seismographs to monitor what is going on. Anyway...its quick easy reading.

Originally posted by CameronFox
I guess you didn't read the article.

Busted.

I guess reading the articles IS worth a try.