Wiring WTC7 for demolition

[aggle-rithm]

ONE QUESTION! did the building fall due to fire and jet fuel? it dosnt matter how we think the building fell all that matters is if they could of fell how we were told. cd's thermite, mini nuke who gives a nonsense which is right or if any are right, i think the most important question is did they fall due to jet fuel and brief fires or in the case of wtc7 fires alone. i know which one sounds more like a theory, at least the ct's explanations are possible. fire and jet feul impossible.

There was no jet fuel left when the first tower collapsed. The jet fuel basically served as a tinder to get the fire going.

I also don't think any of the fire from the towers made it into WTC7. I think the fires started in WTC7 as a result of being hit by huge chunks of falling debris. There were active electrical lines that would have been severed when this happened, and an ample supply of fuel for the resulting short circuits to ignite. I don't know; when the NIST report comes out I'm sure it will go into the exact cause of the fire.

It's interesting the way conspiracy theorists seem to be unable to hold two causes in their heads simultaneously; they seem to believe that impact damage and fire damage are mutually exclusive. When we talk about the fire, they pretend the impact didn't occur or was irrelevant; when we talk about the impact, they say "How could it have fallen from the impact alone?", this time disregarding the fire.

[TimmyG]

if wtc7 collapse due to the fires burning in it...

it is the most amazing collapse of a building in history.

i've tried to consider the collapse hypothesis... but it just isn't realistic.
i'm sure critics will argue that a CD is too unrealistic because it would be too hard to secretly plant the explosives in there.. but i disagree. this has a greater probablity of occurance than a fire induced collapse in the way observed in the video footage in my mind

this debate is fruitless if people studying the collapse of cannot consider that a team of demoliton workers could be persuaded and organised to plant the charges.. i believe they could be. but ofcourse i can't prove it.
i don't think 'critics' are mad for not being able to consider this. it is/would be quite a feat to say the least

[aggle-rithm]

if wtc7 collapse due to the fires burning in it...

...also a skyscraper falling on it...

it is the most amazing collapse of a building in history.

i've tried to consider the collapse hypothesis... but it just isn't realistic.

Based on what? Common sense?

Do you think common sense applies in a situation where tons of steel and concrete are raining down from above?

i'm sure critics will argue that a CD is too unrealistic because it would be too hard to secretly plant the explosives in there.. but i disagree. this has a greater probablity of occurance than a fire induced collapse in the way observed in the video footage in my mind

this debate is fruitless if people studying the collapse of cannot consider that a team of demoliton workers could be persuaded and organised to plant the charges.. i believe they could be. but ofcourse i can't prove it.
i don't think 'critics' are mad for not being able to consider this. it is/would be quite a feat to say the least

The hardest thing for me to swallow is not just the difficulty, but the fact that there was absolutely no motivation for them to do it. It makes no sense. If Larry S. wanted to demolish his own heavily-damaged building, then why not let him? Why the secret team of demo experts?

[Ignatz]

aggle I don't know how you managed that without screaming

there you are posting about how CT'ists can only handle the impact and fire concepts one at a time, and next along comes Timmy and mentions only fire at WTC7

It's truly astonishing

[MiniMauve]

aggle I don't know how you managed that without screaming

there you are posting about how CT'ists can only handle the impact and fire concepts one at a time, and next along comes Timmy and mentions only fire at WTC7

It's truly astonishing

Okay, given the fires burning sporadically in the building and the damage caused by debris to one side of the building, it's amazing WTC7 collapsed so eagorly and uniformly as it did after 7 hours of quiescence (give or take 7 seconds). Is that better, or would you care to indulge in any more insulting generalizations?

[Ignatz]

aggle I don't know how you managed that without screaming

there you are posting about how CT'ists can only handle the impact and fire concepts one at a time, and next along comes Timmy and mentions only fire at WTC7

It's truly astonishing

Okay, given the fires burning sporadically in the building and the damage caused by debris to one side of the building, it's amazing WTC7 collapsed so eagorly and uniformly as it did after 7 hours of quiescence (give or take 7 seconds). Is that better, or would you care to indulge in any more insulting generalizations?

MM - here we go again.

There was a huge debate on 2 threads about these "sporadic" fires with photos and film of smoke belching out of thw whole building. Fire crews reported a gaping hole 20 floors high and the building buckling and groaning, and didn't dare approach.

It didn't collapse uniformly by any means. Take a look at that link I passed aggle-rithm

It didn't take 7 seconds, only the global collapse of the visible part of the N wall took 7 seconds, and that's down as far as the extent the cameras could see in the region of floor 15. The E penthouse was coming down 8 seconds prior to that (and - speculatively - who knows how much of the S side?)

If you choose not to believe any of this that's your right.

If you expect skeptics to believe it was wired way in advance as an insurance scam and/or to destroy evidence then you need to explain the logic of that plan. What if the building hadn't been damaged and caught fire? Would they have caused an untouched building in New York to spontaneously collapse in front of the whole world? With firecrew, police,FBI,ambulance crew and Joe Public swarming nearby?

See what I'm getting at? The CT regarding WTC7 is pure madness.

[DeFecToR]

Settling this debate is pretty simple. Have a look at the extended Jowenko interview i posted in a new thread.

[Ignatz]

Settling this debate is pretty simple. go and read the testimony of the firefighters who were there for hours, saw the fires and gaping hole in #7, and fully expected it it to come down.

[aggle-rithm]

Settling this debate is pretty simple. Have a look at the extended Jowenko interview i posted in a new thread.

On what basis do we accept the word of one expert over all the others? Simply because he believes YOUR story?

Do you think there aren't experts who take controversial positions just to get publicity?

Remember a guy named Dr. Kevorkian?

[Bushwacker]

Settling this debate is pretty simple. Have a look at the extended Jowenko interview i posted in a new thread.

Is it that simple? They showed him a film of WTC7 and he said it was CD. He was equally adamant that the towers were not CD. If WTC7 was CD then logically the towers must have been, but he would not accept that, perhaps because he then thought he had been trapped. He was foolish to be quite so dogmatic in his opinions on the basis merely of briefly watching one video clip, I think.

[chek]

Settling this debate is pretty simple. go and read the testimony of the firefighters who were there for hours, saw the fires and gaping hole in #7, and fully expected it it to come down.

This is an untested assertion - in fact a red herring.
How would firefighters have 'known' it was going to collapse when no steel frame building had collapsed before?

It would seems much more likely that they feared parts of the building falling, as could be commonly expected in building fires.

But nobody could have expected the entire building to come down without prior knowledge.

[Bushwacker]

Settling this debate is pretty simple. go and read the testimony of the firefighters who were there for hours, saw the fires and gaping hole in #7, and fully expected it it to come down.

This is an untested assertion - in fact a red herring.
How would firefighters have 'known' it was going to collapse when no steel frame building had collapsed before?

It would seems much more likely that they feared parts of the building falling, as could be commonly expected in building fires.

But nobody could have expected the entire building to come down without prior knowledge.

No, it seems Ignatz is right, the firefighters did expect it. From Firehouse magazine :

"......By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o?clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o?clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that?s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn?t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety."

Note the use of "pull"

and then:
"Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7? did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn?t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn?t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn?t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o?clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that?s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing."

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Settling this debate is pretty simple. go and read the testimony of the firefighters who were there for hours, saw the fires and gaping hole in #7, and fully expected it it to come down.

This is an untested assertion - in fact a red herring.
How would firefighters have 'known' it was going to collapse when no steel frame building had collapsed before?

It would seems much more likely that they feared parts of the building falling, as could be commonly expected in building fires.

But nobody could have expected the entire building to come down without prior knowledge.

No, it seems Ignatz is right, the firefighters did expect it. From Firehouse magazine :

"......By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o?clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o?clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that?s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn?t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety."

Note the use of "pull"

and then:
"Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7? did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn?t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn?t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn?t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o?clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that?s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing."

[/url]

Addtitionally:
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/91 ... c144445990
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... tml?page=5
and

Firefighters knew it was going to collapse because the WTC7 was giving off signs. This is why no one died and there is hardly any media footage or photography on WTC7.
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members,
so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... Daniel.txt

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous,
tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on
in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... ichard.txt

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --
(Q. A collapse zone?)
-- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... uthers.txt

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there.
(Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?)
Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... illiam.txt

from http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/

Unless, of course, Chek is suggesting that this individuals were involved in the CD.

[aggle-rithm]

No, it seems Ignatz is right, the firefighters did expect it. From Firehouse magazine :

"......By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o?clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o?clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that?s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn?t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety."

Note the use of "pull"

and then:
"Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7? did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn?t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn?t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn?t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o?clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that?s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing."

This reminds me of a special I saw on TV a while back about the human brain. It described how a fire chief was fighting a fire in a building, when he suddenly had a feeling of dread and told his men to get out. Soon afterwards, there was a huge ball of flame, and the building collapsed. The cause, as it turned out, was a flashover, in which flammable gases collect near the ceiling, getting increasingly hotter until they ignite catastrophically. Although the fire chief had never seen this phenomenon, he knew that something bad was about to happen when he ordered his men out.

The show demonstrated what was most likely going on in the fire chief's mind at the time. He had years of experience fighting fires, and he subconsciously compared THIS fire to every fire that he had seen in the past. When questioned later, he was able to identify four or five aspects of the fire that were different from fires he had seen in the past. Instinctively, he concluded that this fire was not going to behave the way that fires normally behaved, even though at the time he wasn't aware of the mental processes behind it.

Long story short, I think this demonstrates that firemen can use their experience to make accurate predictions in novel situations. There were some seasoned firefighters there, many of which had seen buildings collapse from fire before -- maybe not as big as WTC7, and maybe not the same color, or at the same time of day. Nevertheless, they were able to determine that the situation was unsafe, and they got the heck out of there.

[chek]

As you would expect, I'm not going to comment on King's paper without studying it further. On first reading it doesn't seem entirely 'fireproof'.

One aspect of the supplied quotes from the Fire Chiefs concerns me.
FDNY officers can speak to reinforce the official theory of collapse, while other rank firefighters are under a gag order? I have to wonder why that should be.

I'll investigate some of their statements before commenting on those too.
The implication being why would any of them be under gagging orders? What can they say that shouldn't be heard?

Maybe it's my nasty, suspicious mind at work, but equally it could be a nasty, suspicious government at work.

[chipmunk stew]

As you would expect, I'm not going to comment on King's paper without studying it further. On first reading it doesn't seem entirely 'fireproof'.

One aspect of the supplied quotes from the Fire Chiefs concerns me.
FDNY officers can speak to reinforce the official theory of collapse, while other rank firefighters are under a gag order?

Source this or retract it.

I have to wonder why that should be.

I'll investigate some of their statements before commenting on those too.
The implication being why would any of them be under gagging orders? What can they say that shouldn't be heard?

Maybe it's my nasty, suspicious mind at work, but equally it could be a nasty, suspicious government at work.

[chek]

As you would expect, I'm not going to comment on King's paper without studying it further. On first reading it doesn't seem entirely 'fireproof'.

One aspect of the supplied quotes from the Fire Chiefs concerns me.
FDNY officers can speak to reinforce the official theory of collapse, while other rank firefighters are under a gag order?

Source this or retract it.

You wish.
It appears the FBI don't publish lists of who they've gagged, but here's a couple of press reports.

"FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.
Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk."
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319151.shtml

And FAA controllers? How interesting.


"BOMBS INSIDE WTC’
FIRE OFFICER SAYS FIREMEN, COPS KNOW TRUTH
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/b ... e_wtc.html
By Victor Thorn
"Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York."
“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11."

Isaac said over the last four years he’s compiled information and names of civilians and firefighters, whose identities he keeps anonymous for their safety, who all claim to have either witnessed explosions in the towers or have information that a controlled demolition took place.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

"FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.
Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk."
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319151.shtml

From the Commission report:

To our knowledge, none of the chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible. One senior chief did articulate his concern that upper floors could begin to collapse in a few hours, and that firefighters thus should not ascend above floors in the 60s.That opinion was not conveyed to chiefs in the North Tower lobby,and there is no evidence that it was conveyed to chiefs in the South Tower lobby either.134

134.For no chief fearing a total collapse,see FDNY interview 45,HQ (Mar.8,2004);ThomasVon Essen inter-view (Apr. 7, 2004); FDNY interview 52, Chief (Apr. 5, 2004); FDNY interview 4, Chief (Jan. 8, 2004); FDNY interview 15,Chief (Jan.14,2004);FDNY interview 5,Chief (Dec.16,2003).For one chief’s perspective,see FDNY interview 52,Chief (Apr.5,2004).For the opinion not being conveyed,see FDNY interview 4,Chief (Jan.8,2004); FDNY interview 15, Chief (Jan. 14, 2004); FDNY interview 5, Chief (Dec. 16, 2003).

I do not have a link to the referenced pdf.

"BOMBS INSIDE WTC’
FIRE OFFICER SAYS FIREMEN, COPS KNOW TRUTH
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/b ... e_wtc.html
By Victor Thorn
"Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York."
“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11."

Isaac said over the last four years he’s compiled information and names of civilians and firefighters, whose identities he keeps anonymous for their safety, who all claim to have either witnessed explosions in the towers or have information that a controlled demolition took place.

Paul Isaac Jr. has posted on this threadhttp://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... +gag+order regarding supposed statements attributed to him.

ETA: And AFP is not exactly a neutral news source:
http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.live.com/? ... ear%3d2006

[chek]

ETA: And AFP is not exactly a neutral news source:

But then neither are the mainstream media, who don't talk about it.
I see where Isaacs complains of 'explosions' becoming 'bombs' in the press - where does he state about the gag orders?

[Bushwacker]

ETA: And AFP is not exactly a neutral news source:

But then neither are the mainstream media, who don't talk about it.
I see where Isaacs complains of 'explosions' becoming 'bombs' in the press - where does he state about the gag orders?

Here:
Hello Mark,

If its the wingtv article its ********. They slandered me last year when I read them the riot act about their behavior.

The article" Fireman admits again 9-11 was an inside job" is slander.

The article written by randy lavello is also slander as he has me saying that woolsey former CIA Director Woolsey was passing a gag order down the rank and file of the FDNY. That statement was never made in that context, It was said in humor ,and as a matter of fact that so-called reporter was fired by Alex Jones for making **** up on alot of people. The only reason I didn't go through the legal channels is because lawyers cost to damn much.

So the true statement was the that I heard Explosions not bombs as I couldn't tell what the sounds were as I was blocks away and can not confirm what the noise was. As I was aproaching City Hall the North Tower began the collapse I heard what sounded like thunder just prior to the collapse then the Popping as the tower fell. I had my radio scanner and there were reports of explsions within the conplex over the PD and PAPD frequencies. As I made my way closer I could pick up on the FD Handie Talkie frequencies and it sounded like hell. No one new what the was going to happen next but when the second tower began its fall there were what sounded like loud popping coming from the tower as well as a sucking sound like reveres air pressure.

Its seems the people at 911Truth have some problems with credibility as I had approached them on this issue for clarification. No need to say they never returned my messages.

They are tools of the trade.

Take care
Paul

[chipmunk stew]

As you would expect, I'm not going to comment on King's paper without studying it further. On first reading it doesn't seem entirely 'fireproof'.

One aspect of the supplied quotes from the Fire Chiefs concerns me.
FDNY officers can speak to reinforce the official theory of collapse, while other rank firefighters are under a gag order?

Source this or retract it.

You wish.
It appears the FBI don't publish lists of who they've gagged, but here's a couple of press reports.

"FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.
Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk."
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319151.shtml

And FAA controllers? How interesting.


"BOMBS INSIDE WTC’
FIRE OFFICER SAYS FIREMEN, COPS KNOW TRUTH
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/b ... e_wtc.html
By Victor Thorn
"Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York."
“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11."

Isaac said over the last four years he’s compiled information and names of civilians and firefighters, whose identities he keeps anonymous for their safety, who all claim to have either witnessed explosions in the towers or have information that a controlled demolition took place.

Watch this ego project by the Loose Change crew and tell me how effective this supposed gag order is:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3577304119

In the video, on FDNY member mentions restrictions on speaking publicly about certain topics while in uniform. That's not a gag order. That's par for the course in every government organization and professional corporation in the world. While you're representing your company, you're not always free to speak your mind.

Show me one documented case where anyone in any of these organizations was prevented from speaking as a private citizen about explosions or anything else they witnessed at Ground Zero, or was punished for doing so.

On the contrary there are dozens of members or ex-members of NYPD and FDNY who speak publicly about their experiences.

[MiniMauve]

Okay, given the fires burning sporadically in the building and the damage caused by debris to one side of the building, it's amazing WTC7 collapsed so eagorly and uniformly as it did after 7 hours of quiescence (give or take 7 seconds). Is that better, or would you care to indulge in any more insulting generalizations?

MM - here we go again.

There was a huge debate on 2 threads about these "sporadic" fires with photos and film of smoke belching out of thw whole building. Fire crews reported a gaping hole 20 floors high and the building buckling and groaning, and didn't dare approach.

Except, there are also witnesses who say the damage was minor, the fires sporadic, and demolitions experts that describe the collapse as a classical and well done CD. Why are these reports worth nothing, not even consideration? Why are the reports of explosions in the towers worth nothing? I don't dismiss the witness reports and evidence you and other critics put forward. I honestly don't know which is true and which is false or mistaken. I do know that there is enough here to take a closer look. That's all I'm hoping for from critics: an admission that a closer look is required because of the conflicting evidence.

It didn't collapse uniformly by any means. Take a look at that link I passed aggle-rithm

It didn't take 7 seconds, only the global collapse of the visible part of the N wall took 7 seconds, and that's down as far as the extent the cameras could see in the region of floor 15. The E penthouse was coming down 8 seconds prior to that (and - speculatively - who knows how much of the S side?)

If you choose not to believe any of this that's your right.

Here we go again, Iggy. This is dishonest of you. As you well know, I never disputed the E Penthouse collapse occurred, or at least something appears to be happening there. What I said then, and have to repeat once again, is that it's significance wasn't conclusive one way or the other. I don't expect you to agree with my assessment but I also don't care to have my view misrepresented for your benefit. To reiterate my view: something happens on the E Penthouse, perhaps a collapse. There is no smoke or fire from the E Penthouse but something obviously occurs. Nothing happens for another 6-8 seconds, no ripples, partial collapse, etc. Then, suddenly, WTC7 exhibits a classic crimp in the middle, suggesting CD, followed a half second later by a rippling across the entire building and a global collapse in approximately 7 seconds. Does this prove CD? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but it certainly raises suspicion.

If you expect skeptics to believe it was wired way in advance as an insurance scam and/or to destroy evidence then you need to explain the logic of that plan.

But I don't expect you to believe it. Never did. I do hope that you can admit that there is enough doubt for the collapse of WTC7, indeed the entire 911 tragedy, to be worthy of further and deeper investigation.

And, no, I don't need to prove a reason or motive for CD. This an oft-repeated critic fallacy. We are not at the stage of proving guilt, we are in the stage of criminal investigation. We are doing what the authorities should have done from the moment 3000 people were murdered in the 911 tragedy. I'm not asking for anyone to be imprisoned or executed. I'm asking for an investigation. Do we have to prove guilt to even conduct a criminal investigation? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

What if the building hadn't been damaged and caught fire? Would they have caused an untouched building in New York to spontaneously collapse in front of the whole world? With firecrew, police,FBI,ambulance crew and Joe Public swarming nearby?

See what I'm getting at? The CT regarding WTC7 is pure madness.

Is it mad to consider they may have had contingencies? Is it mad to imagine they may have dithered on the decision to pull or not to pull? I can imagine a number of scenarios that may have led them to wait 7 hours before pulling the building, most of which will be incorrect but all of which are potentially correct. Is that madness?

[Ignatz]

Except, there are also witnesses who say the damage was minor, the fires sporadic, and demolitions experts that describe the collapse as a classical and well done CD. Why are these reports worth nothing, not even consideration? Why are the reports of explosions in the towers worth nothing? I don't dismiss the witness reports and evidence you and other critics put forward. I honestly don't know which is true and which is false or mistaken. I do know that there is enough here to take a closer look. That's all I'm hoping for from critics: an admission that a closer look is required because of the conflicting evidence.

Here we go again, Iggy. This is dishonest of you. As you well know, I never disputed the E Penthouse collapse occurred, or at least something appears to be happening there. What I said then, and have to repeat once again, is that it's significance wasn't conclusive one way or the other. I don't expect you to agree with my assessment but I also don't care to have my view misrepresented for your benefit. To reiterate my view: something happens on the E Penthouse, perhaps a collapse. There is no smoke or fire from the E Penthouse but something obviously occurs. Nothing happens for another 6-8 seconds, no ripples, partial collapse, etc. Then, suddenly, WTC7 exhibits a classic crimp in the middle, suggesting CD, followed a half second later by a rippling across the entire building and a global collapse in approximately 7 seconds. Does this prove CD? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but it certainly raises suspicion.

And, no, I don't need to prove a reason or motive for CD. This an oft-repeated critic fallacy. We are not at the stage of proving guilt, we are in the stage of criminal investigation. We are doing what the authorities should have done from the moment 3000 people were murdered in the 911 tragedy. I'm not asking for anyone to be imprisoned or executed. I'm asking for an investigation. Do we have to prove guilt to even conduct a criminal investigation? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

Is it mad to consider they may have had contingencies? Is it mad to imagine they may have dithered on the decision to pull or not to pull? I can imagine a number of scenarios that may have led them to wait 7 hours before pulling the building, most of which will be incorrect but all of which are potentially correct. Is that madness?

Regarding the fires - they were not sporadic towards the end. End of argument. The photos and film show smoke gushing from every visible floor of that building.

To conduct an investigation you need a plausible case. The DPP regularly chucks out potential cases as un-prosecutable. This means no dramatic holes that the defence will utilise.
With WTC7 you'd be saying that they pre-wired it in case it got hit badly and caught fire, then they could bring it down and claim even more insurance. The DPP wouldn't give CT'ists the time of day with a proposal like that. Why do you need 'contingencies' for WTC7 when you're planning to wreck the Twin Towers with commercial aircraft? Yes - it's madness to suggest that.

"To pull" does not mean execute an implosive CD. CD experts use "to pull" to mean the use of cables or heavy equipment to physically pull stuff down. Stop claiming it means implosive CD and your particular case actually improves in quality.

regards

[chek]

Regarding the fires - they were not sporadic towards the end. End of argument. The photos and film show smoke gushing from every visible floor of that building.

Yes, there was a lot of smoke - some of which from the higher floors seems to be clinging to rather than issuing from every floor of the building. However masses of smoke do not necessarily denote a huge fire.
The south side photos that I've seen also shows less flames than the more common north side.

To conduct an investigation you need a plausible case. The DPP regularly chucks out potential cases as un-prosecutable. This means no dramatic holes that the defence will utilise.
With WTC7 you'd be saying that they pre-wired it in case it got hit badly and caught fire, then they could bring it down and claim even more insurance. The DPP wouldn't give CT'ists the time of day with a proposal like that. Why do you need 'contingencies' for WTC7 when you're planning to wreck the Twin Towers with commercial aircraft? Yes - it's madness to suggest that.

"To pull" does not mean execute an implosive CD. CD experts use "to pull" to mean the use of cables or heavy equipment to physically pull stuff down. Stop claiming it means implosive CD and your particular case actually improves in quality.

regards

Once again, it is not up to us - how could it be? - to provide evidence that is to the standard required for legal prosecution. That's why the whole point of the campaign is for a new impartial enquiry.

That is where true facts will be established as far as they can be, and evidence for cases of prosecution, should the need arise, will spring from.

As far as use of the word 'pull' goes, the water is now so muddied that it has become useless trying to establish what it would have meant at the time the statement was made.

Actually the whole anecdote sounds like vain self-aggrandising nonsense (why would a Fire Chief concerned about public safety and the safety of his men consult with a businessman? But that's a pathology that's common to Bush and Rumsfeld et al and their unguarded utterances they later 'didn't mean ' in quite the way it sounded.)

p.s. don't worry - I haven't forgotten about the King paper - I'm a little to busy over the next few days to devote time to it, but I will.

[Ignatz]

Regarding the fires - they were not sporadic towards the end. End of argument. The photos and film show smoke gushing from every visible floor of that building.

Yes, there was a lot of smoke - some of which from the higher floors seems to be clinging to rather than issuing from every floor of the building. However masses of smoke do not necessarily denote a huge fire.
The south side photos that I've seen also shows less flames than the more common north side.

http://www.911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

[chek]

Regarding the fires - they were not sporadic towards the end. End of argument. The photos and film show smoke gushing from every visible floor of that building.

Yes, there was a lot of smoke - some of which from the higher floors seems to be clinging to rather than issuing from every floor of the building. However masses of smoke do not necessarily denote a huge fire.
The south side photos that I've seen also shows less flames than the more common north side.

http://www.911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Yup - you posted those video links before - that's when I pointed out the coanda-like effect on the upper portions and the less dense appearance of the smoke when the camera pans upwards against a sky background.
And once again - lots of smoke does NOT mean lots of fire.