Retired Battalion Chief Arthur Scheuerman Does HardFire With Mark Roberts

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
For the angular momentum problem Anok, what sort of force do you think stopped the rotation?

OK I'm bored and I'm well 'medicated' so I'll go through this nice and slow. I hope you appreciate my efforts Mr.Obvious?
What do I think stopped the rotation? Well first off a question, you think it would take an absurd amount of explosives to do what you think gravity did?
Think about that for awhile and get back to me.

Please view this thread because it saves me re-posting the same info.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also it's interesting to note you say...

(I am told he has some errors here and there)

Someone told you? Again if you don't understand then how can you know what this person told you was true? If you are too lazy to check things for yourself then I got land to sell you. And no, taking the line out of context doesn't change its meaning. It just proves once again we are debating with people willing to take other peoples word without checking it out for themselves.

...
In reality, this didn't happen. The columns weren't even part of the collapse as the debris from above fell around them, punched through floor slabs without ever loading the columns, and providing large lateral forces that pushed the columns outwards a force that they were not designed, nor able to resist in any large capacity.

Wow I had to read that a couple of times and shake my head a bit. First off again we're back to huge assumptions that are not provable or even probable.
I know I'm wasting my time with this cause I get the feeling you don't care what I write you'll post some bs you think counters it.
So I'll do this part quick...

Assumptions...
1. Any floor fell on any floor.
2. see number 1.

That's a huge assumption and until it can be proved that could even happen you need to see if it has happened before. Has it? Well no it hasn't.
Secondly you need to be able to reproduce the effect in the lab and repeat it. Has that been done? Nooo. Can you fulfill those two requirements Captain? Until you can then your hypothesis, and what those 'people' say, is complete bunk. Come back to me with some real science and not hollywood physics and we'll see about that signature...

How did any of what you posted explain the angular momentum being changed? Do you know what 'angular momentum' is?

Momentum is a fundamental quantity in mechanics that is conserved in the absence of external forces. Conservation of momentum follows from invariance under translation by Noether's symmetry theorem. Eric Weisstein's World of Math A similar quantity conserved in the absence of noncentral forces is called angular momentum.

Source

Please explain what the external forces were that caused the top to change its 'angular momentum' to a vertical fall? What caused the undamaged lower section to collapse when your hypothesis relies on floors falling directly onto floors bellow them, and to keep going through the path of most resistance while at the same time not experiencing any resistance?

I await your reply sir, thank you ANOK...

[edit on 11/3/2008 by ANOK]

CaptainObvious

#1.
Regarding the North Tower:
I plan to do a thread on the topic, so we can discuss specifically that issue.


#2.
Consider Indira Singh (First Responder) testimony in conjunction with quotes such as "keep your eye on that building" "the building is about to blow up" etc.

Consider here what she has to say:
www.youtube.com...

The fire dept told her that Building 7 was going to be brought down.

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden

Says something very similar:

McPADDEN:

So, the man that said it was going to blow up... KNEW the building was getting demolished?

So now, considering the inconsistency I see in the damage, HOW THE BUILDING FELL which is highly suspect, the quotes from the CNN clip, with people being told "the building is about to blow up" and "keep your eye on that building it will be coming down soon"

So again let us put these quotes on CNN into focus
www.youtube.com...

First VOICE
"YOU *HEAR* THAT?"
Self evident, he is refering to loud explosions or noises.

Next quote by another voice
"keep your eye on that building it will be coming down soon"

Next voice:
"The building is about to BLOW UP, Move it back"

Notice he said "move it back"?

Next.

"We are walking back, because the building is about to blow up"

So when I think about some of these other people who have come forward not just Craig Bartmer, I don't see a problem with believing Cheif Nigro covering up something.

I think the evidence leads me to conclude Chief Nigro is not telling the truth, or hiding something.

#3. False Analogy

Using your LOGIC
Your analogy about the heart attack is false again, because neither Craig Bartmer or Chief Nigro are bona-fide experts in controlled demolitions.

However there is even a more logical reason why your analogy is totally fallacious.

#1. No-one is asking Craig Bartmer to perform a demolition, there is a difference in *IDENTIFYING* something or performing something.

The person in your analogy can easily "identify" it is a hard attack. Now it might not be, but he would have good reason to suspect it is. So in this case, all Craig has to do is to identify what he thinks is unusual.

Now when I put his quotes together with the others and the way buidling 7 fell, I mentioned already that it leads me to believe the Chief is lying or covering something, and also the fact Silverstein is quite on just who he talked to.

Originally posted by talisman
The fire dept told her that Building 7 was going to be brought down.

Who? The FDNY? So they ARE in on it?

Originally posted by talisman
Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden

Says something very similar:

McPADDEN:

So, the man that said it was going to blow up... KNEW the building was getting demolished?

McPadden has changed his story many times. I pointed this out several months ago. If I have time I will find them.

Originally posted by talismanSo now, considering the inconsistency I see in the damage, HOW THE BUILDING FELL which is highly suspect, the quotes from the CNN clip, with people being told "the building is about to blow up" and "keep your eye on that building it will be coming down soon"

You perseverate on the "blow up" quote. Why?

Why dont you get it? There were MANY specialist... Professionals there. They all suspected that with the damage and unfought fires...the building was in serious jeopardy.

Originally posted by talisman
First VOICE
"YOU *HEAR* THAT?"
Self evident, he is refering to loud explosions or noises.

or noises? Maybe Silverstein farted?

(kidding)

No one was an eyewitness to any explosions. Yes I agree that explosions were more than likely heard. Lets not beat a dead horse

Your quote are all the same. There was a collapse zone. DO you know why? yes...they FEARED the worse. Their fears were realized.

Originally posted by talisman

I don't see a problem with believing Cheif Nigro covering up something.

I think the evidence leads me to conclude Chief Nigro is not telling the truth, or hiding something.

So there we have it. Chief Nigro was in on it!

NOW ....you DO know that Chief Nigro was not in charge from the beginning? Chief of Department Peter Ganci died in the collapse of the north tower. He was in charge. So tell me. How would Chief Nigro know that Mr. Ganci would die, leaving Chief Nigro in charge? Was he that evil? Please explain HOW Chief Nigro would know this?

Originally posted by talisman
#3. False Analogy

Using your LOGIC
Your analogy about the heart attack is false again, because neither Craig Bartmer or Chief Nigro are bona-fide experts in controlled demolitions.

Der.. No they are not... I never implied that they did or didn't. But Chief Nigro was trained to know when a building is in jeopardy. It's what he did for a living. The police officers training in building structures can not compare to that of the Chief of a city fire department.

Now if there were a terrorist seen around NY. I would listen to a police officers advice over that of a fireman in that instance.

Ug....

All I know is that you are accusing an incredible hero (Chief Nigro) for covering up the destruction of at LEAST one skyscraper.

CaptainObvious

Who? The FDNY? So they ARE in on it?

IF by "IN ON IT" you mean they were planning the demolition, then NO!

IF you mean "IN ON IT". like when the CIA gave '___' to prostitutes and ruined countless lives with MKULTRA with the help of mental health professionals and the countless evil individuals who radiated innocent people for the US gov and kept it secret for over 40 years, and the millions dead that John Stockwell former CIA talks about, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff plotting murder and terrorism against their own people, if you mean "IN ON IT" like that. Then the answer is "NO"!!

*IF* you mean that some members of the FDNY were "IN ON IT" as in the sense they were told the building was going to collapse and for safety reasons, it was going to be brought down. "IN ON IT" in the sense they thought they were "IN ON" the right thing being done for safety...Then probably YES!!

In order for it to be the FDNY, it would literally have to be the entire FDNY.

Now Indira Singh (First Responder) mentions also hearing the "building was going to be brought down"

McPadden has changed his story many times. I pointed this out several months ago. If I have time I will find them.

Eyewitnesses are known to change their minds, This happens in the courts, this happens in real life.
Or simply he isn't reliable, but he isn't the only one.

Take George Bush, he claims he saw the Plane Hit the North Tower and thought what a horrible accident. Well, you know what? I believe him, I believe he is privy to film we are not, and also the fact he spoke of an "accident" when in fact people saw the Plane Hit the Tower for the first time, it was the South Tower and no-one thought it was an accident.

So yes, I suppose some of these people change their minds and we can choose who is reliable. In fact since George Bush admitted as much, it is pretty clear the Gov is hiding the Pentagon footage since George saw the North Tower get hit!

Or you might take the route of him just "mispeaking" but you wouldn't do that with McPadden would you?

You perseverate on the "blow up" quote. Why?

I think you might want to re-read my post, I mentioned a bunch of other quotes on the CNN clip as well, and also Craig Bartmer and Indira Singh.

So there we have it. Chief Nigro was in on it!

NOW ....you DO know that Chief Nigro was not in charge from the beginning? Chief of Department Peter Ganci died in the collapse of the north tower. He was in charge. So tell me. How would Chief Nigro know that Mr. Ganci would die, leaving Chief Nigro in charge? Was he that evil? Please explain HOW Chief Nigro would know this?

That wouldn't matter, if Cheif Nigro, or another CHIEF had been there, they would have been convinced that the building had to be brought down. they could have easily been under that assumption.

Like I said, I don't think these people were "IN ON IT" as in something like GLADIO where innocent people (MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN) were killed in fake terrorist attacks, so the governments could enforce tighter security.

No I don't mean "IN ON IT" like that. They were convinced by someone (MOST LIKELY CIA), since the CIA had some office in building 7 of the operation.

So, the Chief and whomever else from the FDNY thought they were "IN ON" saving lives.

Der.. No they are not... I never implied that they did or didn't. But Chief Nigro was trained to know when a building is in jeopardy.

False comparison, NO SKYSCRAPER were in jeopardy like this before, so he had ZERO experience in that regard. Furthermore, you contradict your own pattern of logic..

YOUR LOGIC:

MADRID BUILDING=DIFF BUILDING SO IT CAN'T BE COMPARED

Therefore, since WT7 was so unique, and skyscrapers haven't fallen in the past due to fires, and I can't compare other buildings,then the Chief had NO EXPERIENCE in this regard.

All I know is that you are accusing an incredible hero (Chief Nigro) for covering up the destruction of at LEAST one skyscraper.

Hero? I am not saying he thought he did the wrong thing. He thought he did the right thing. He probably lied about it thinking it was a needed thing to do.

I don't think that means he is a bad person, or not a hero.














[edit on 13-3-2008 by talisman]

[edit on 13-3-2008 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
*IF* you mean that some members of the FDNY were "IN ON IT" as in the sense they were told the building was going to collapse and for safety reasons, it was going to be brought down. "IN ON IT" in the sense they thought they were "IN ON" the right thing being done for safety...Then probably YES!!

Please explain to me HOW you can CD a building that has been on fire for house? A building that has been hit by debris of a collapsing skyscraper. Zero planning.... demolished for safety. Do you know how long it takes to plan and execute a controlled demolition? This would have been the tallest building in history to be taken down via CD. And you are claiming it was done without any planning?

Originally posted by talisman

No I don't mean "IN ON IT" like that. They were convinced by someone (MOST LIKELY CIA), since the CIA had some office in building 7 of the operation.

So, the Chief and whomever else from the FDNY thought they were "IN ON" saving lives.

So, the CIA told Chief Nigro that they would be saving lives by imploding the building..... Dude... I don't get it?

Please explain your hypothisis as to what happened to WTC7. I can't follow you at all.

Originally posted by talisman
False comparison, NO SKYSCRAPER were in jeopardy like this before, so he had ZERO experience in that regard. Furthermore, you contradict your own pattern of logic..

Did you read the letter Chief Nigro sent? HAs nothing to do with what happened in years past...it was what happened that day:

2 skyscrapers collapsed
hundreds of firemen killed
another skyscraper is on fire
Limited water to fight these fires
Reports of the building "leaning" "groaning"

His decision was to make sure not another life was lost. And it was the right one.

Originally posted by talisman
YOUR LOGIC:

MADRID BUILDING=DIFF BUILDING SO IT CAN'T BE COMPARED

Therefore, since WT7 was so unique, and skyscrapers haven't fallen in the past due to fires, and I can't compare other buildings,then the Chief had NO EXPERIENCE in this regard.

Um... WHAT? He has experience in skyscraper fires.... he was around for the 1993 bombing. He was trained for disasters in high rise buildings.

Originally posted by talisman

Hero? I am not saying he thought he did the wrong thing. He thought he did the right thing. He probably lied about it thinking it was a needed thing to do.

I don't think that means he is a bad person, or not a hero.

Your entire post has me baffled. How is it that a Chief of a Fire Department can order the destruction of a BURNING skyscraper. You tell me what Controlled Demolition expert would run into a burning skyscraper with TNT and detonation cord!

reply to post by ANOK

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
For the angular momentum problem Anok, what sort of force do you think stopped the rotation?

Please answer my first question. Dancing around by posting different threads won't cut it... unless you can direct me to a single post that gives me the answer I requested.

Thanks, I hope your feeling better tonight.


[edit on 13-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by ANOK

 

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
For the angular momentum problem Anok, what sort of force do you think stopped the rotation?

Please answer my first question. Dancing around by posting different threads won't cut it... unless you can direct me to a single post that gives me the answer I requested.

Thanks, I hope your feeling better tonight.


[edit on 13-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

The answer is simple. It is the same answer you give us when we ask. Take out the pivot point and the angular momentum stops.

You say gravity did it.

We say something else did.

Same physics involved.

CaptainObvious

Please explain to me HOW you can CD a building that has been on fire for house? A building that has been hit by debris of a collapsing skyscraper. Zero planning.... demolished for safety. Do you know how long it takes to plan and execute a controlled demolition? This would have been the tallest building in history to be taken down via CD. And you are claiming it was done without any planning?

The building might have been rigged with self-destruct devices. You do know it had a very interesting list of occupants?

25th Floor Tenants: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of Defense (DOD), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA),

24th Floor Tenant: IRS

23th Floor Tenant: Office of Emergency Management (OEM)

11th-13th Floors Tenant: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

9th and 10th Floors Tenant: US Secret Service

They could have had the building set up, CIA secret files would be saved as would anything from the Dept of Defense. They could have easily sold the story to Chief Nigro.

So, the CIA told Chief Nigro that they would be saving lives by imploding the building..... Dude... I don't get it?

Simple really, they could have said the building was going to fall over. They could have also told him about the dangers of all those little secrets in those files getting into the "TERRORISTS" hands.

His decision was to make sure not another life was lost. And it was the right one.

Exactly, that is my point.

Your entire post has me baffled. How is it that a Chief of a Fire Department can order the destruction of a BURNING skyscraper. You tell me what Controlled Demolition expert would run into a burning skyscraper with TNT and detonation cord!

Here is what I think happened. WTC-7 was planned. I don't think the Chief knew of the 'plan' but was sold a story on why the building had to use its 'self-destruct' sequence.

The motive? The motive was simple, it was to make sure that the Emergency Management would not be used inside the bunker so to create further confusion and diversion to mask the real work that was at hand.

Why should this baffle you? After all you think that random debris and fires did a job that human intelligence wouldn't be able to achieve!! That isn't very logical.



[edit on 14-3-2008 by talisman]

reply to post by Griff


First of all Griff... the question was presented to Anok. But this is an open forum so you are entitled to answer.

I will a Anok... what and how much is the "something else"

Thanks

Originally posted by talisman

The building might have been rigged with self-destruct devices. You do know it had a very interesting list of occupants?

So, the CIA told Chief Nigro that they would be saving lives by imploding the building..... Dude... I don't get it?

Simple really, they could have said the building was going to fall over. They could have also told him about the dangers of all those little secrets in those files getting into the "TERRORISTS" hands.

Umm WHAT ?? Are you serious??? BWahahhahaha!! The building had built in bombs?!!!

You realize how insane this is right? There were bombs planted in the building "just in case?" Kind of like Gene Hackman's place in the movie "Enemy of the State?" Or Mel Gibson in " Conspiracy Theory?"


And then you say this ????

Originally posted by talisman
That isn't very logical.

Priceless

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by talisman

The building might have been rigged with self-destruct devices. You do know it had a very interesting list of occupants?

So, the CIA told Chief Nigro that they would be saving lives by imploding the building..... Dude... I don't get it?

Simple really, they could have said the building was going to fall over. They could have also told him about the dangers of all those little secrets in those files getting into the "TERRORISTS" hands.

Umm WHAT ?? Are you serious??? BWahahhahaha!! The building had built in bombs?!!!

You realize how insane this is right? There were bombs planted in the building "just in case?" Kind of like Gene Hackman's place in the movie "Enemy of the State?" Or Mel Gibson in " Conspiracy Theory?"


And then you say this ????

Originally posted by talisman
That isn't very logical.

Priceless

I don't see anything of substance in your rebuttal. It is possible they had some-kind of detention device within the building, or that something was put into the building prior to all of this happening.

What I do see is a building fall in a manner that looks very suspicious. If that isn't enough, I also see the BBC, and CNN reporting the demise of the building before it takes place! Very close in time in fact.
I would like to know the source of that story.

You know you predict a likely event, that is one thing.
You predict an unlikely event, that is entirely a different matter. Especially, when it involves random fires and damage doing what essentially a controlled demolition does.

If that was the case, then all we would have to do is just randomly smash a building and start some fires and watch the building collapse as building 7 did. No need for controlled demolition experts anymore!!



[edit on 15-3-2008 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
I don't see anything of substance in your rebuttal.......

Substance? like your post?

First of all...think. You went from saying the building was wired just in case...to it possibly been wired just prior.

Lets look at both options. First of all WT7 was developed in 1984. Silverstien originally had a hard time finding tennants. So, there would be no reason to wire it "just in case". His main tennant was the Solomons Brothers. (ended up as Citi-Corp) They were a wall street investment bank that was founded in 1910. It wasn't until after the 1993 bombing that the bunker was built.

To suggest that the building was wired to be part of this conpisracy is just as absurd. To wire a building that is open for business 24-7 is improbable..if not impossible.

Originally posted by talisman
....fall in a manner that looks very suspicious.

To who? You. And conspiracy theorists. There has been I think one controlled demolitions expert that stated that it looked like a controlled demolition. However, he wasn't told of the condtion of the building or that there were fires going. Danny Jowenko is his name. He also stated that WTC 1 &2 do NOT appear to be CD's.

As far as the news crews go, they were all told through out the afternoon that the building was in jeopardy. What do you think happened? The NWO sent out the script too soon to the media? Come on dude... Think!!

Originally posted by talisman
Especially, when it involves random fires and damage doing what essentially a controlled demolition does.

What does this mean???

CaptainObvious

Substance? like your post?

So, you wrote something without substance because you thought I offered no substance?

First of all...think. You went from saying the building was wired just in case...to it possibly been wired just prior.

Plausible scenario's, police, military, scientists working on hypothesis's do plausible scenario's all the time.

They were a wall street investment bank that was founded in 1910. It wasn't until after the 1993 bombing that the bunker was built.

So, its possible it was 'wired' then. Or maybe the CIA decided to wire it, or have it wired. They did have an office there. Seeing as they had a hand ins 6 million deaths...
JOHN STOCKWELL
www.youtube.com...

It isn't hard to believe they had it wired, I wouldn't put it past them.

To suggest that the building was wired to be part of this conpisracy is just as absurd

I don't think so.

To wire a building that is open for business 24-7 is improbable..if not impossible.

I don't think so.

To who? You. And conspiracy theorists

Regarding the manner it fell.....also Danny Jowenko (Controlled Demo Expert)
www.youtube.com...

Yes it looks suspicious. As for him not being told, he was told about the fires in the building. Regarding 1 and 2, that is his opinion. So you agree with him there, but disagree with him on 7, I disagree on 1 and 2 but agree with him on 7. Same diff.

As far as the news crews go, they were all told through out the afternoon that the building was in jeopardy.

So? So what? Because someone tells you a building is in jeopardy, doesn't mean you go and tell people it already fell. Also, the timing of the event combined with the manor it fell and some of the eyewitness testimony I talked about is damning.

What do you think happened? The NWO sent out the script too soon to the media? Come on dude... Think!!

Didn't say that, I said I want to know their source. It is obvious that the source of that information had "INSIDE KNOWLEDGE".

What does this mean???

What do you mean what does it mean??? Its simple really, your saying that a random event of fires and damage brought a building down in a controlled demolition look, so really in the future for skyscrapers all the controlled demolition people have to do is just do something random and it will bring the building down toward its footprint!!

Why the planning?

In fact your logic is contradicting.

On the one hand your saying HUMANS WOULD HAVE TO HAVE REALLY PLANNED WTC-7's destruction.

On the other hand, your saying an unguided and UNPLANNED EVENT destroyed building 7!!!

So according to you the UNGUIDED DID WHAT THE GUIDED COULDN'T DO!!

reply to post by talisman



You offer zero evidence to support your theory Talisman. You respond with opinions and only opinions.

To suggest that someone can start random fires and do a little damage is pure BS. It doesnt work that way and you know it.

the Dutch CD expert that I first brought to your attention does not think the buildings were brought down by conventional controlled demolitions. He stated that he hasnt the knowledge in unconventional methods that are being thrown around CT site. (Termite, thermate, Suitcase nules..etc.)

reply to post by CaptainObvious


In regards to the Media and the falling of WTC7. Why don't you write the BBC and ask them who their source was.

Remember Peter Jennings: "What we feared all day has happened"
This was in regards to WTC7 Collapsing.

I'm asking you to think... why in the WORLD would the "perps" have to send a message to the MSM to tell them a building has fallen??? You don't need a source to tell you a building has fallen. Cameras were on it all afternoon.

CaptainObvious

You offer zero evidence to support your theory Talisman. You respond with opinions and only opinions.

I have already stated that there are different standards and levels for evidence. To suspect something, one does not have to have bona-fide proof, one could offer good reason and rational. It is circumstantial combined with the obvious and the self-evident.

I don't know of to many collapses of such structures where people actually predict the collapse so close to collapse! That is self evident.

To suggest that someone can start random fires and do a little damage is pure BS. It doesnt work that way and you know it.

Your own logic is contradicting your premise. I am not arguing against damage. You are saying that a *RANDOM* event in less then a day, using random damage and fires brought down a building, toward its footprint! But you also say this would require tremendous planning!

according to you.....It also happened without planning!!

So, which is it?

Building 7 would need tremendous planning to be brought down?
Or your theory that the unplanned and unguided did it?

It seems to me what your really saying is that it wouldn't take ANY brains to do this.

the Dutch CD expert that I first brought to your attention does not think the buildings were brought down by conventional controlled demolitions.

He plainly stated regarding building 7, "THAT IS CONTROL DEMOLITION".


REGARDING MEDIA

The BBC is not telling, also let us be clear on what I am saying. I am saying, that someone must have told the BBC that bldg 7 was going to come down. Probably someone ran with that, and announced it early. Of course we have to speculate, and it would be nice to get the full chain of events, but given the data at this point that is a viable hypothesis.

It is the fact that the story went out so close to actual collapse. This in and of itself should raise an immediate red flag.

perhaps you don't think so, but many people do. Also the BBC lost transmission so close to collapse! I mean that is really suspicious.

Originally posted by talisman


I don't know of to many collapses of such structures where people actually predict the collapse so close to collapse! That is self evident.

We have been here before talisman. The opinion of the MANY PROFESSIONALS on site all agreed the building was in danger of collapsing. What don't you understand? They made a judgement call and it was correct! Read some of the witness statements:

The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.

–FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. – FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale

graphics8.nytimes.com...

A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango

graphics8.nytimes.com...

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 hose line 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 Brandeis 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 Magazine: 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 through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably 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. – Capt. Chris Boyle

/e7bzp

Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did.

–M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway

So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler

graphics8.nytimes.com...

Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured. –FDNY Deputy Chief Harold Meyers

graphics8.nytimes.com...

We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. –Chief Frank Fellini

graphics8.nytimes.com...

reply to post by CaptainObvious


So you think all these professional people prove that something random dropped the building into its own footprint?

None of them have had experience with such a structure previous and it was natural for them to think it would collapse because of what happened with the Towers.

However, I am not talking about "thinking about a buildings demise", rather I am talking about getting it right so close to collapse. That is a far different matter in my view.


#1. If Building 7 is so damaged then why isn't the NORTH TOWER so damaged from the Tower right next to it?

#2. All your quotes have no idea what went on to cause such damage, they assume it was *ALL* from the WTC. I am not saying, there wasn't damage from the Towers, but given the lack of such damage at the NORTH TOWER, we can conclude something else might be responsible. This is where all your quotes fail. They just assume it was *ALL* from the Towers.

#3. Your logic is still refuting itself. You are trying to prove that something by accident did what people or human agency and intelligence could not perform, even though demolitions are performed by human intelligence.

#4. Building 6 didn't have a complete collapse, it burned from top to bottom. A lot of the bld was destroyed, but enough of it was standing, even though the roof had something fall right through it from the Towers!

#7 Why didn't Bankers Trust fall? Why was everyone so sure about "7"?

Also a quote from Indira Singh says that they told her "WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BRING IT DOWN"
www.youtube.com...


Here is the clincher. The CIA is a murderous organization, that has overthrown democratically elected gov's such as in Iran in the 50's, and has been involved with things like Mkultra, or third world deaths as John Stockwell talks about.

They are basically a "MURDERER",

NOW that "MURDERER" had an OFFFICE in that building that happened to collapse in a way that convinced a dutch demolition expert. If the murderer is in the building then we should hold them as a suspect.

They have murdered in the past, and they are not above suspicion.







[edit on 16-3-2008 by talisman]

CaptainObvious

You should also look at these quotes
FDNY oral history

Find the quotes in the article posted here
www.journalof911studies.com...

(1) McGlynn, James, 9110447, p. 8
"Any time I've heard of a collapse, it was never an entire building like this turned out to
be."

(2) Murray, Patrick, 9110327, p. 16- 17
"Early on, looking at the buildings, my personal belief, my personal immediate belief was
that the top of the building was going to slide off of the south tower because damage that
the plane did, it looked like it took out half the building on a number of floors, on
multiple floors. But it was a fleeting thought. I don't think anybody there believed in their
heart that that building was going to collapse, even that the top would come off. But I
don't think anybody believed that that building was going to collapse the way it did."

(3) Carletti, Richard, 9110419, p. 4
"I turned to Tommy and I said, Tommy, this building is in danger of collapse. In my
opinion, I didn't think there was going to be a catastrophic collapse..."

(4) Chiafari, Joseph (Lieutenant), 9110215, p. 14
"I was thinking in my mind, gee, if the thing was going to collapse, how it was going to
weaken itself, most likely where it's burning at, it's most likely going to tip over and the
remainder of the structure is almost going to like remain intact, so you had a good
amount of like 20 or 30 floors that would maybe tip over on its side."

(5) Cooke, Alan, 9110040, p. 4
"I heard a rumble. Both of us looked up and we saw a part of the building. I saw a part of
the building coming down. I had thought it was just one piece of the building coming
down. I didn't in my imagination didn't think it was the entire building coming down."

(6) DeMarco, Diane, 9110331, p. 8
"I saw the antenna start to slide, but we thought at that point that it was going to topple
over, not go straight down."

(7) Delgado, Manuel, 9110004, p. 15
22
"It was tilting towards us, so it had been to be tilting eastward."
Q. "East?"
A. "Maybe southeast...At that point we hear the rumble and, you know, this is it. I figure
I'm dead. I thought this tower was going to topple."

(8) Dixon, Brian (Battalion Chief), 9110166,
p. 15-16
"The realization hit that it's going to fall down, the top's coming off. I was still thinking--
there was never a thought that this whole thing is coming down. I thought that that blew
out and stuff is starting to fly down. The top is going to topple off there."
p. 19
"But I went back up and peered out. I'm expecting to look up and see that the top of the
building fell into the street.
I look and what I see is about 20 stories left of a building and jagged edges on the south
side. I was like 20 stories, maybe, or so and on the north side of that tower down to about
maybe 10 or 15 stories on the south side of it.
It's like I can't believe the whole building is down. I was dumbfounded."

(9) Grabher, Steve (Chief), 9110241, p. 11
"The whole top was teetering, and I really thought just the top of the building was falling
off."

(10) Guidetti, Pete, 9110084, p. 25
"In me saying that these buildings are coming down, I thought it was going to collapse, it
was going to topple."
Q. "From above?"
A. "From above, like 30 stories, 20. Whatever was left above the plane crash in either
tower would just give way and go this way and come down into the street. I did not think
the whole building would pancake down."
See also, Supervising Fire Marshall Robert Byrnes, 9110206, p. 5-6 and Lieutenant
Michael Cahill, 9110143, p. 7.


Its interesting to note how The PRO's often spoke of a "COLLAPSE" but actually meant a "PARTIAL COLLAPSE"!

What is even more interesting in my view, is why did so many think "PARTIAL" in REGARDS to the TOWERS but according to you they felt "COMPLETE COLLAPSE" regarding 7?

I mean, after all it was the Towers that got hit!





[edit on 16-3-2008 by talisman]

[edit on 16-3-2008 by talisman]

reply to post by talisman


Thats quote mining. Please post the links to these quotes so I can view the complete statement.

Thanks talisman.

Hope your having a good night.



ETA.... ok ... i see our threads crossed thanks

[edit on 16-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]