new WTC7 video with the raging inferno.

Well its not really an inferno but gives you an idea of the fires...


It looked to me that it would have been quite easy to save the building what do you guys think?

They were fighting fires in WTC5 and 6 right across the street.

They literally could have just turned around, 180 degrees, and been spraying WTC7.

Oh of course it could have been saved. Here pretty soon I'm going to gaither all links and things to support my belief on the government being involved in the attacks.

Yeah.... it's not like 2 110-story building collapsed a few hundred fire fighters were killed and missing.......thousands of people killed/trapped....numerous fire trucks destroyed........

yeah...there was nothing else going on that day what-so-ever....those lazy fire-fighters.....

Port Authority was already 'seeding the idea' that the building was going to have problems structurally. Its all too much, I can't see how anyone can deny the obvious, namely that building 7 was taken down by a controlled demolition.



Another point I just thought of....

Silverstein claims they wouldn't be able to 'contain the fires', well looking at this new video it seems clear that they would have been able to.

IF THE CIA and other sensitive things were in building 7.

Then why weren't the firefighters directed to save building 7???

[edit on 27-4-2007 by talisman]

It wasn't the firefighters' decision. The decision was handed down to them to not to even try to fight the fires early that morning.

And as an added "coincidence", the fire alarm in WTC7 had been set to "test" mode that morning and was unable to warn anyone when fires began.

This is all ignoring the fact that fire doesn't fail steel buildings. Try to find examples outside of 9/11. It won't happen. And there have been plenty of fires in much smaller buildings that put all 3 of the WTC buildings' fires to shame.

[edit on 27-4-2007 by bsbray11]

I wonder if the debunkers feel the fire proofing came off on Building 7 as well?~lol


But, I was thinking if the orders came down to the firefighters to ignore building 7, then I have yet to see a meaningful explanation as to 'why'?

The Gov has totally ignored that question. Since Building 7 was a much larger building then 6, you would think the firefighters would receive an order telling them to fight the fires in 7 , due to the fact falling materials from 7 could do a lot more damage since it was taller building.

Also it really looks like someone wanted building 7 destroyed.

Another thought came into my head while thinking about this.

Perhaps the whole 'Building 7 is unstable' thing was originally put out to move people AWAY from the building so the JOB of the demolition would not be seen?

[edit on 27-4-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
Perhaps the whole 'Building 7 is unstable' thing was originally put out to move people AWAY from the building so the JOB of the demolition would not be seen?

I responded to this, but then just started another thread on it, here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 27-4-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by talisman
I wonder if the debunkers feel the fire proofing came off on Building 7 as well?~lol

The NIST does...

wtc.nist.gov...

Page 29... "Possible Contributing Factors"

Damage to fireproofing from normal activities prior to event or debris...

What a bunch of douches.

Does anybody know how NIST tested the fireproofing to see if a jet impact could knock it off of all the trusses upon impact into the towers?

I'll give you a hint: no one else but NIST would be taken seriously if they claimed it was relevant.

Give up? They took a small section of steel, put fireproofing on it, and then shot it with a shot gun. No joke.

On a side note... 5 and 6 were UTTERLY destroyed... why would you focus your efforts on lost causes and not saving WTC 7?

I have seen no pictures of 5 or 6 looking like the fires would spread out to other buildings...

Why fight those fires instead of WTC 7? Makes no sense.

anyone got an idea what floors are burning in that footage, and who rented them? Damage seems fairly focussed on those 2 sections.

Originally posted by bsbray11
It wasn't the firefighters' decision. The decision was handed down to them to not to even try to fight the fires early that morning.

Got a credible source to this? And are you talking about before or after the planes crashed? (define "early")

And as an added "coincidence", the fire alarm in WTC7 had been set to "test" mode that morning and was unable to warn anyone when fires began.

The fires started after the collapse of the twin towers. The whole area was evacuated after the planes crashed. There was no one there to be warned.

This is all ignoring the fact that fire doesn't fail steel buildings. Try to find examples outside of 9/11. It won't happen.

When has anything even remotely close to 9/11 ever happened?

*
Piacenza

It looked to me that it would have been quite easy to save the building what do you guys think?

That video is showing the view from a side that wasn't facing the collapse. According to the fire fighters it was the south side of the building was most heavily damaged....

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by bsbray11
It wasn't the firefighters' decision. The decision was handed down to them to not to even try to fight the fires early that morning.

Got a credible source to this? And are you talking about before or after the planes crashed? (define "early")

Ask FEMA to define it, because in their exact words, it was "fairly early on". (FEMA's report, chapter 5.5.3).

FEMA also said the firefighters decided not to fight it, but the decision was the chief's, and he was consulting with the OEM/FEMA to make his decisions according to transcripts of first-hand testimonies I've read. I don't have the exact source for the second part, but I can tell you exactly where to look: the New York Times released transcripts of first-responders that were collected by the World Trade Center Task Force, and these are hosted here: www.nytimes.com...

The fires started after the collapse of the twin towers. The whole area was evacuated after the planes crashed. There was no one there to be warned.

You may assume that but the fact remains that WTC7's alarms were essentially turned off.

When has anything even remotely close to 9/11 ever happened?

Physics never stops, TJW. Research the effects of fire upon steel structures. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you, but look up just the Cardington tests, which were conducted over a span of over 20 years, or even NIST's own tests on the truss assemblies.

This just needs adding to the already mounting evidence for WTC7 CD.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Ask FEMA to define it, because in their exact words, it was "fairly early on". (FEMA's report, chapter 5.5.3).

FEMA also said the firefighters decided not to fight it, but the decision was the chief's, and he was consulting with the OEM/FEMA to make his decisions according to transcripts of first-hand testimonies I've read. I don't have the exact source for the second part, but I can tell you exactly where to look: the New York Times released transcripts of first-responders that were collected by the World Trade Center Task Force, and these are hosted here: www.nytimes.com...

Oh, lol
You're talking about after the fires had already started (which was after the towers fell). You were making it seem like they had decided before the attacks or something. I have absolutely no problems with them not fighting the fires. The building was going to be destroyed anyway even if it didn't fall. Trying to put out the fires would have been a waste of resources.

You may assume that but the fact remains that WTC7's alarms were essentially turned off.

I'm not assuming anything. That's a fact and whether WTC7's alarms were off or on wouldn't have changed a thing.

Physics never stops, TJW. Research the effects of fire upon steel structures. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you, but look up just the Cardington tests, which were conducted over a span of over 20 years, or even NIST's own tests on the truss assemblies.

We can research fire on steel until we're blue in the face. The question still remains. When has anything close to what happened on 9/11 ever happened?
(shall we compare matches to flamethrowers next?)

[edit on 27-4-2007 by ThatsJustWeird]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I have absolutely no problems with them not fighting the fires. The building was going to be destroyed anyway even if it didn't fall. Trying to put out the fires would have been a waste of resources.

Well that may be fine, but I'm sure they wouldn't just let it burn if they could help it. It would be a hazard to neighboring buildings (fire spreading), and eventually to itself if it got really out-of-hand and burned long enough. But why were they fighting fires in WTC5 and 6, literally on the other side of the street, when they were already destroyed and on fire, and their only other neighbors were the smoldering remains of the towers? It doesn't seem like they were following your logic, or they certainly wouldn't have been fighting 5 and 6.

We can research fire on steel until we're blue in the face. The question still remains. When has anything close to what happened on 9/11 ever happened?

By refusing to accept the validity of precedent and actual research, you're just making it impossible for anyone to reason with you.

(shall we compare matches to flamethrowers next?)

Explain to me why research into the effects of fire on steel structures doesn't apply to WTC7. Impact damage just means removing part of the outer face. Fire still has to bring it down for your theory to hold.

[edit on 27-4-2007 by bsbray11]

ThatsJustWeird,

I believe you're being ignorant to the fact that fire on steel can provide a lot of information as to how the fires affected World Trade Center 7 as well as World Trade Center 1 and 2.

It would make perfect sense to talk about it til we're blue in the face as its the relevant to the cause as to supposeably "how the buildings fell" for the most part.

The main point is, aside from anything else in this thread, the fires weren't going to pose a large enough threat to this building this early on, maybe if they went into the night.

But there's already enough evidence for that, and even seeing how the building collapsed can tell you a great deal about what key components must of been damaged prior to collapse along with photos of the damage to the SE corner.

Again, Effects of Fire on Steel, very important.

EDIT: Furthermore, for them to let the building just stand and come down due to fire is rather pre-mature, in a responsible sense. Because only god knows how the building would fall, in which direction.

See what I'm getting at?

LOL, it'd actually help those trying to push the official story if they said there was controlled demolition so that the building wouldn't fall against another building.


[edit on 4/27/2007 by Masisoar]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Explain to me why research into the effects of fire on steel structures doesn't apply to WTC7. Impact damage just means removing part of the outer face. Fire still has to bring it down for your theory to hold.

1. According to the firefighters who were actually there, the structural damage was more than the removal of "part of the outer face." You guys seem obsessed with the fires alone bringing down the building. Not sure why. Neither of the reports stated that.
2. My theory?? What theory?

If a face of WTC 7 was damaged as extensively as you and other people claim and then that would mean that the lateral ejections from the collapses of 1 and 2 must of been fairly pertinent.

Are you and your fire fighter friends claiming this is what happened because of debris:




Or this



What I'm also wondering is if you can provide any sort of video or picture that will show this damage to the face?

And, LOL, I don't even know what damage on the upper half of the building would have to do with anything anyway, considering it fell from the bottom up.

[edit on 4/27/2007 by Masisoar]