Why did building 7 fall?

How do you know he said it like that? How do you know that "pulling it" wasn't suggested by a fireman, and he simply used that term to confirm it?

This is weak lads. You ain't gonna convince anyone with this crap.

Danny Jawenko said it looked like controlled demo.

Doesn't mean it was.

DUH!!!!

Moving past the insults and denial of evidence again:

www.youtube.com...

film of him saying no bombs were used in the twin towers.

to make it appear to the public that WTC towers 1 & 2 were also felled by demolition.

on a link made on page 1...
the last two sentences tell us an important point.
. that among the hundreds of legal cases & investigations,
that citigroup documents were destroyed in the collapse,
citigroup is also among those banks that make up the Federal Reserve (Inc)
without any documentary evidence still existing all those hundreds of
cases are dropped.



~~~~~~

How does that change anything adjay?

and why would Silverstein admit to blowing up a building?

He didn't.

You have it wrong.

Welcome to the real world.

Originally posted by albie
There is witness testimony from firefighters who were in the building well up to before it fell.

What was the latest any firefighter was actually inside Building 7. How many were there at that time, and can you identify them and link to their testimony please?

Out of interest, do you know what time Larry Silverstein made the 'pull it' comment and to whom?

I did all that on another forum that is now down.

I really can't be bothered. But now I know you'll say "ah, see he's lying."

There's no one website that details all this.

The FAA report says there was no firefighting at 9am.

I do recall that there was firefighters in the building up to mid day, and maybe beyond. The building fell around 3pm I think.

My internet time has run out for now. I'll get back to it tomorrow.

Originally posted by adjay
Believe what you want, but anybody that doesn't see Building 7 was controlled demolition, is kidding themselves.

I certainly don’t believe that it was controlled demolition, and that is based on normal facts minus any conspiracy theory. Considering that I really could care less if it was controlled demo or not, I guess I cannot be kidding myself, and I am allowed to hold my own opinions on this point of view minus your insults about it. The truth is that there is so little proof of controlled demo as to be laughable, and anyone who thinks those buildings could have possibly been wired for demolition before 9/11 obviously knows nothing about demolition wiring.

reply to post by defcon5


It's not an insult, I'm sorry if you took offense. My statement mentions the word "see", as all it takes is a look to see how buildings are demolished in a controlled way, some examples are here of earthquake destruction and controlled demolitions. It is my opinion, if you cannot see the blatant similarities, that you are in fact kidding yourself. I'm not calling you anything, and you have every right to your own opinion.

Danny Jawenko is a controlled demolitions expert, and he was unaware of a third building falling that day. He says "absolutely" that it is controlled demolition. He even consulted the building plans, after being told it was building 7 that came down on 9/11 next to and after WTC1 and WTC2, and concluded it could not possibly have been brought down by fire. And reaffirms it was controlled demolition, and confirms the "pull it" term is in fact a controlled demolition term.



I had typed out a longer post, but the internet swallowed it. (not a conspiracy!)

As I said before a building doesnt collapse nevermind straight down free fall! Building 7 did nog get hit by debris. Building 7 was further away then some other buildings wich actually where hit by debris wich are still standing today..

Just read this Explanation

Originally posted by adjay
Danny Jawenko is a controlled demolitions expert, and he was unaware of a third building falling that day. He says "absolutely" that it is controlled demolition. He even consulted the building plans, after being told it was building 7 that came down on 9/11 next to and after WTC1 and WTC2, and concluded it could not possibly have been brought down by fire. And reaffirms it was controlled demolition, and confirms the "pull it" term is in fact a controlled demolition term.

Did you not read my post above about how the SC fire department lost 10 members due to a fire in a truss structure similar to WTC7, which collapsed in 30 minutes? With this in mind, how can this Jawenko guy say that it’s impossible for another truss structure to fall due to fire? Have you ever seen the amount of wiring that goes into placing cutting charges to bring a building down? What about the fact that if it had been wired in advance, as many claim, that some person in the building using a cell phone could have triggered the charges before the event happened?

There is no way to hide controlled demolitions, though I could certainly understand if the FD needed to bring the building down since they did not have the manpower to fight the fire, nor monitor it, while it eventually burned to the ground on its own. The manpower they did have was needed elsewhere in the city. Remember that just because 911 happened that day the rest of the city also had normal emergencies which continued occurring. We can see this in the number of car fires which were photographed around various parts of the city during this event. That is part of the reason why I think the whole WTC7 dispute is silly, because even if it was brought down intentionally, it may have simply been done to free up the remaining fire department personnel to deal with other emergencies that day, and thus shows zero evidence of 911 being an inside job.

The only reason that it seems to be important to CT’ers is because they feel there were some important documents that had to be destroyed in the building that day. Well I hate to have to explain this to folks, but there are much easier ways to destroy some documents, or even computer servers, then by bringing down an entire building.

Originally posted by albie
I'll get back to it tomorrow.

Here are a couple of things to think about.

Firstly, Silverstein's comment.

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, “You know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is… is pull it.” Er… and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

According to NIST NCSTAR1-8, The Emergency Response Operations, page 111 (emphasis added)…

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear. In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30. No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires.

Thus, if the building was cleared by 2:00 p.m.; and if the Chief Officer then discussed ‘the FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires’ with his command officer; then the fire department commander could not have informed Silverstein ‘that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire.’ until after the building had been evacuated.

In other words, there were no firefighters to withdraw at the time Silverstein spoke with the fire department commander.

There is also an interesting eyewitness acount from Indira Singh given In an interview with Bonnie Faulkner, of KPFA’s Guns and Butter. Singh, a volunteer Emergency Medical Technician on 9/11, claims the area around WTC-7 was cleared in anticipation of a controlled collapse (emphasis added).

SINGH [at 11:22]: …pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much - just flames everywhere and dark smoke - it is entirely possible… I, I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage. That I don’t know - I can’t attest to the… to the um, validity of that. All I can attest to is that by noon or one o’clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down.

FAULKNER: Did they actually use the word ‘brought’ down, and who was it that was telling you this?

SINGH: The fire department. The fire department. And, um, they did use the words “we’re gonna have to bring… we’re gonna have to bring it down”. And for us there, um, observing the nature of the devastation, it was… they made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility. Given the subsequent controversy over it I… I don't know. You know, I’m not an engineer, I don’t know. All I know is, you know, that was my experience.

We backed off a little bit to Pace University. There was another panic around 4 o’clock because they were bringing the building down. And people seemed to know this ahead of time so people were panicking again and running.

This time of 4 o'clock is further interesting because it ties in with the CNN footage, which was broadcast at 4:10, showing Aaron Brown announcing that building 7 "is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing."

And we haven't even touched on whether 'pull it' is a term one might use to refer to a group of firefighters; whether Silverstein would have been consulted about the firefighting operation in any event; and whether the term 'pull it' is used in the demolitions industry or not.

reply to post by coughymachine


First off, trying to apply a timetable to a group of fire fighters in a scenario like that is just plain not going to work. The reason being that they are running multiple teams and communicating with multiple people very rapidly, and its nearly impossible to exactly recreate that timeline when they go to put their report on paper. Take it from someone who used to run a flightline that was similarly hectic, that the way things read on paper, and the exact way they played out at the time are approximations of each other and not exact.

Secondly, you all have failed to answer my question above. Lets just say for the heck of it that the fire department decided that they weren't able to handle the fire, needed to send their personnel to deal with other situations, and needed to rapidly bring down the building in a more controlled fashion then just letting it collapse on its own. What exactly does that prove conspiracy wise?

As far as I can see it proves absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Originally posted by defcon5
Did you not read my post above about how the SC fire department lost 10 members due to a fire in a truss structure similar to WTC7, which collapsed in 30 minutes? With this in mind, how can this Jawenko guy say that it’s impossible for another truss structure to fall due to fire? Have you ever seen the amount of wiring that goes into placing cutting charges to bring a building down? What about the fact that if it had been wired in advance, as many claim, that some person in the building using a cell phone could have triggered the charges before the event happened?

He can say it as he is a controlled demolitions expert that has looked at the building plans and structure. He makes a living from bringing down buildings in the most economical and safe manner possible, to preserve surrounding structures. I have seen the amount of wiring that goes into placing cutting charges, and your statement that someone using a cell phone could have triggered the charges is an outright falsehood. Please prove this "fact".

I don't care about the documents in the building, and neither does Danny Jawenko.

defcon5,
Do you work for the Government?You seem to be trying to throw everybody off with the "Official" story.I am a firefighter and have been for 13 years and we have NEVER said we were going to "pull" a building because the fires were too much to control.Nobody says anything at all.If firefighters are in the building and the building looks like it might be ready to collapse or something they "laydown" on the airhorn for 1 long blast.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by coughymachine

 

What exactly does that prove conspiracy wise?

I'm not trying to prove anything.

I entered this discussion following albie's claim that Silverstein's 'pull it' comment had "been debunked ages." I am certainly not aware this issue has been satisfactorily debunked and asked for clarification.

The next comment was that there "is witness testimony from firefighters who were in the building well up to before it fell". Again, I asked for information about who was in the building and when. We left it that albie would return later. In the meantime I set out some of the problems I have with the timeline.

According to the information I have introduced, the Chief spoke with his command officer about the condition of the building and the fire department's ability to tackle the fires after it had been cleared of firefighters, which was between 12:30 p.m and 2:00 p.m. It seems reasonable to assume NIST has this about right. It is also broadly consistent with Indira Singh's testimony, in which she speaks about being moved back from the area around 12:00 p.m. or 1:00 p.m.

So again, I didn't set out to prove anything, but rather to introduce material relevant to the discussion at hand and also to show that some of the arguments that I've seen dismissing the theories surrounding Silverstein's comments need to be tightened up.

Where I come from fire chiefs never consult with building owners like the oh so brainy Larry Silverstein in order to decide what to do about a building fire. Up here the fire chief tells you to get your fat butt out of the way. I guess things are different down in New York city.

if building 7 fell due to fire and damage then why didnt the Marriott Hotel do the same?
www.prisonplanet.com...

perhaps because the people that reside in that building have nothing to hide.

It's quite simple according to NIST. . .

Columns 79, 80 and/or 81 were compromised. This caused a progressive horizontal collapse from east to west. The final result was a total vertical collapse as gravity was allowed to pull the structure to the ground in a few seconds. Now even though it looked exactly like a CD, it wasn't, because our government says so. This is the official explanation.

No need for a complex CD! All one had to do was cut these two or three columns with a torch and the whole building comes down symetrically? You see, building owners have been getting ripped off by companies that perform CD's for years. It's a big secret they don't want anyone to know about.

I wonder how many other high rise structures there are out there that one person with an acetylene torch could drop to the ground? Don't tell the terrorists. . .

2PacSade-

spelling

[edit on 13-12-2007 by 2PacSade]