Kevin Mcpadden 9/11 First Responder Building 7 Overhears Countdown for Demolition

Originally posted by Son of Will

Most of the 9/11 Truth Movement claims that nothing hit WTC 7 from WTC 1 while SPreston and others in the "movement" agree that it's perfectly plausible.

I've NEVER heard that claim before. Ever. Everyone in the 911 truth movement understands that WTC7 sustained *some* damage.

The person to whom I was replying repeated a very common statement:

"It didn't get hit by any planes, and there were just a couple really small fires, so why did it fall?

The extent of that damage is what is disputed, not the existence of the damage.

I still hear the claim that there was little or no damage, as implied also by the poster to whom I replied in, "it didn't get hit by any planes."

I think the falling debris is an important piece of the puzzle, here.

I believe the latest NIST report claims that the floors did not pancake when they collapsed. What mechanism could possibly eject such large pieces of debris, far enough to damage the structural integrity of WTC7?

I can understand a few small pieces, but this is not the case. In the aerial videos of both collapses, it is clear that there is SOME kind of extremely powerful ejection taking place, and many pieces of debris weighing several tons were found hundreds of feet from the main buildings.

No one argues the extent to which exterior wall debris was ejected. However, SPreston and others claim that the energy required to do that could only come from explosives.

But that is just a claim.

The question on the table for SPreston and others is to quantify the amount of explosives that would be needed to do that AND the other question is why would the "perps" use FAR more explosives than needed IF the objective was just to severe the exterior wall connections and push them out of the way so that they fell far closer to the WTC towers. In other words, why use extra explosives to "hurl" tons of exterior wall pieces as far as 600 ft away?

So far, I have seen no such calculations nor explanation IF explosive use is a hypothesis. It has to be quantified to match the observed effects and debris extent. So far, those who claim that only explosives could be used haven't demonstrated it - they state confidently that "just gravity alone couldn't do it." No physics or math calculations have been presented.

We skeptics of 9/11 Truth see it differently. Yes, it's extraordinary that there was so much energy to hurl WTC exterior wall panels so far. But we do NOT make claims that "only explosives could do it" nor that "gravity" couldn't. Appeals to incredulity are fallacious.

We want the calculations and hopefully SPreston is hard at work getting those for us.

reply to post by Internet Explorer


I have none. Like every body else in this forum.
But the Energy absorbed is in the Hundreds of Millions of Joules.
The second tower fell because that plane was going nearly twice
as fast as the first, and that means it had nearly 4 times the amount of
energy as the first plane. This is just the law of Physics.
I saw Nasa do a Experiment once ages ago.
Fired a Frozen PEA into a 3" thick solid steel block at 10,000 mph,
it created a creater 5" in diameter in a steel block. A PEA!!
Fired a small ball bearing into the another block, you could almost put
your fist through it. Went through like it was made of butter and just
tore the steel to shreds.

When you have lots of Mass and Lots of Speed, nothings going to stop
it, including a cheese grater.

reply to post by jthomas


I would only like to add....

If anyone has ever thrown a coin of any tower, you don't need to
hurl the coin as hard as you can to hit the ground 50ft away.
It only needs a small push. The Tallest building I've used was only
40 floors. So 100 Floors is going to go considerably further than 50ft,
even with just a small push.

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by Internet Explorer

 

I have none. Like every body else in this forum.
But the Energy absorbed is in the Hundreds of Millions of Joules.
The second tower fell because that plane was going nearly twice
as fast as the first, and that means it had nearly 4 times the amount of
energy as the first plane. This is just the law of Physics.
I saw Nasa do a Experiment once ages ago.
Fired a Frozen PEA into a 3" thick solid steel block at 10,000 mph,
it created a creater 5" in diameter in a steel block. A PEA!!
Fired a small ball bearing into the another block, you could almost put
your fist through it. Went through like it was made of butter and just
tore the steel to shreds.



When you have lots of Mass and Lots of Speed, nothings going to stop
it, including a cheese grater.

I have never heard this one before.
So you are saying the second plane was traveling 10k miles per hour?
How the hell did they keep that plane frozen from Boston to NYC?

Originally posted by jprophet420

But it's not like there isn't other evidence to support his story: and namely Larry Silverstein saying "pull it."

Convict him then smartass.

You know, I really hate having short sarcastic posts like that around here but really whats a person to do? Did you actually research the insurance issue on 911?

Silverstein LOST one of the court cases, then won the next one on a precedent that had not been set prior to the first case. If he was involved in any conspiracy theory he failed miserably, didn't get his money, AND kept his mouth shut.

Talk about unprecedented.

Smartass? For what? Merely repeating what Silverstein said as a basis to corroborate the statements of explosions, and hence, controlled demolition, by Mcpadden? You know what, I could verbally waste you right about now, but in the spirit of civility in our newly rejuvinated 911 forum, I am just simply going to submit an alert to staff and let you get the warning for derision. k? Great, glad you agree.

Further, what in the heck does his insurance case have to do with his statement "We've had such a loss of life already, we might as well just pull it...And they made the decision to pull...." Or very close to that. I am not one of the fools about to further buy even more BS that that statement did not refer to CD, because to me it did. No question about it. They have had to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to explain away that slip up, just like with Rumsfeld's and Cheney's slip ups. And Bush's too.

The bottom line is that Silverstein's slip up corroborates Mcpadden's statements of hearing at least one explosion/rumble right prior to the collapse of WTC7. His insurance case has absolutely NOTHING to do with this analogy.

The words "pull it"
should be enough for everyone to question the official story -
Closing your ears - won't make those words go away -
Period.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by spinkyboo]

reply to post by spinkyboo


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And the silence of Barry Jennings is deafening.
Would someone please post his video.
God bless you Barry.




YouTube - World Exclusive: WTC7 Survivor Barry Jennings Account
www.loosechange911.comhttp...://www.prisonplanet.com/www.infowars.com... /Exclusive: Emergency Coordinator Barry Jennings gives his explosive account ...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI - 14 hours ago - Similar

I never get the blue links when I cut and paste.

Thanks Barry.


[edit on 20-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

reply to post by spinkyboo

The words "pull it"
should be enough for everyone to question the official story -
Closing your ears - won't make those words go away -
Period.

So explain what the words mean....

Silverstein used them a year later in a news interview. He was backed up by the Fire Chief at the scene , Daniel Nigro, who told how he made the decision to evacuate the area around WTC 7 that afternoon after became
apparent it was unstable adn could collapse.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by spinkyboo

 

The words "pull it"
should be enough for everyone to question the official story -
Closing your ears - won't make those words go away -
Period.

So explain what the words mean....

Silverstein used them a year later in a news interview. He was backed up by the Fire Chief at the scene , Daniel Nigro, who told how he made the decision to evacuate the area around WTC 7 that afternoon after became
apparent it was unstable adn could collapse.

Oh , sweet so now NYC fireman are taking orders from no show building owners. This crap gets worse and worse.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


The decision to evacuate WTC 7 was made by Chief of Department Daniel Nigro, who assumed command on death of FDNY Chief Peter Ganci who was killed in collapse of WTC 2.

Because of the twisting of his actions by various conspiracy types Nigro issued the following statement

Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

Notice the words "without consulting the owner"

Silverstein would be contacted later and informed of the decision to abandon WTC 7 .

But authority to do so rested in Nigro.

Originally posted by spinkyboo
The words "pull it"
should be enough for everyone to question the official story -
Closing your ears - won't make those words go away -
Period.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by spinkyboo]

This is an interesting article on the " pull it " quote :-

www.911myths.com...

The author, amongst other things, quite reasonably poses this question :- "if it's so obvious that WTC 7 was demolished, then why are the insurance companies not suing Silverstein for fraud ? "

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Actually, insurance has everything to do with whether Silverstein's "pull it " quote had anything to do with ordering the demolition of WTC 7.

Insurance companies do not like paying out vast sums of money. They employ investigators, loss adjusters, lawyers etc to try and avoid or minimise it. Do you not think that if there was the slightest whiff of suspicion that Silverstein had been involved in cd of WTC 7 they would have been screaming blue murderr about it and pursuing every legal avenue against him ?

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Yeah, that's right. The plane was going 10,000 MPH
With the Air Brakes off and going down hill.....

reply to post by Donny 4 million


I wonder what an elevator would sound like droping 100 or even 30 floors. Do you think it might go boom at the boom at the bottom. Do you think
the volume of air being forced out of the bottom would be enough to
blow doors off, you know like an explosion.

Doesn't that seem more plausible than somebody planting dynomite
all over the place.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

Actually, insurance has everything to do with whether Silverstein's "pull it " quote had anything to do with ordering the demolition of WTC 7.

Insurance companies do not like paying out vast sums of money. They employ investigators, loss adjusters, lawyers etc to try and avoid or minimise it. Do you not think that if there was the slightest whiff of suspicion that Silverstein had been involved in cd of WTC 7 they would have been screaming blue murderr about it and pursuing every legal avenue against him ?

You know what would be really nice. If you cold post some of those investigations by the insurance companies so we can read what they said and what exactly was investigated.
And better yet you could post the names of the principals of the insurance company and who owns or owned them.

Originally posted by liveandletlive

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by cerberus00

 

Did you take into account that some Large Outside pieces of Towers were
blown outward and fell up 600ft away from the Tower. These steel H frames weighed
more than 10 Tons each. Drop a 10 Ton steel Object from
100 stories and see how much damage it does. It would prabably sound
like Boooommmm, not to mention the earth shaking experience.

I have the same question for you. You said “Did you take into account that some Large Outside pieces of Towers were blown outward and fell up 600ft away from the Tower. Drop a 10 Ton steel Object from100 stories and see how much damage it does.

The problem with your statement is the words “blown outward” and “drop”! You realize they are two different things don’t you? One uses explosive power and the other uses gravity. Just my two cents.

It is no more misleading than somebody just extracting the words "Pull it"
and leaving out the whole context and circumstances in which it was said out.

And once again, the only word you read was "Blown".
But blown does not automatically mean explosives unless talking to
a 911Nutter. So that was my fault, bad choice of words.

If you put too much air into a Balloon, it does what ?-?
It EXPLODES, It BLOWS apart. Does this mean C4 was placed
inside the Balloon prior to inflating it.

So if you "Inflate" a balloon to the Fill a Floor Space the size of a Footbal
Field and then Sqash it suddently, what happens?-?

The air inside compresses until the confining outer structure can no
longer hold the pressure inside and BOOOOM, Windows(TM) wil "Blow" out.
All done without explosives but with a BANG.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

Actually, insurance has everything to do with whether Silverstein's "pull it " quote had anything to do with ordering the demolition of WTC 7.

Insurance companies do not like paying out vast sums of money. They employ investigators, loss adjusters, lawyers etc to try and avoid or minimise it. Do you not think that if there was the slightest whiff of suspicion that Silverstein had been involved in cd of WTC 7 they would have been screaming blue murderr about it and pursuing every legal avenue against him ?

You know what would be really nice. If you cold post some of those investigations by the insurance companies so we can read what they said and what exactly was investigated.
And better yet you could post the names of the principals of the insurance company and who owns or owned them.

Here you go :-

www.historycommons.org...

If you wish to ascertain the directors and shareholders of Industrial Risk Insurers I am sure you can do that on your own.

You will see that they paid out 861 million dollars in respect of WTC 7 so, if they made any enquiries at all into the possibility of cd, they obviously came to the conclusion that there was no evidence for it although they had 861 million good reasons for hoping there was.

reply to post by Alfie1


Some of you guys make me laugh. Have you even bothered to do any research into these insurance companies? Have you attempted to find connections that Silverstein might have had with these insurance companies? I HAVE. And I will be posting those findings once I put it all into an easy-to-follow format. So,get ready for a few surprises. Then again, the irrefutable proof of 'miraculous coincidences' will be denied by you debunkers anyway,so I will actually be posting it for those who have a brain to think with .

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Some of you guys make me laugh. Have you even bothered to do any research into these insurance companies? Have you attempted to find connections that Silverstein might have had with these insurance companies? I HAVE. And I will be posting those findings once I put it all into an easy-to-follow format. So,get ready for a few surprises. Then again, the irrefutable proof of 'miraculous coincidences' will be denied by you debunkers anyway,so I will actually be posting it for those who have a brain to think with .

I look forward to it. In the meantime I am not inclined to believe that a large insurance company pays out 861 million dollars other than to meet a bone fide claim.

I also think truthers need to sort out whether 9/11 was an insurance scam or a plot with worldwide strategic aims. Trying to mix the two just looks ridiculous, or even more ridiculous I should say.

reply to post by okbmd


I explained in a nutshell what happened before it got deleted, but thats fine with me because it enforces the point I was making, which is most people didn't really look into it. If you research it you will find that the case was split up and that as I said, Silverstein lost one of the cases and a lot of money. Chronologically he won the second case on a precedent that had not been set at the time of the first trial. Therefore, he was not in on any coverup as far as the insurance "scams" because you don't loose money in a scam intentionally.