Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[TakeAStepBack]

You're going to be waiting a long time. These folks believe the NIST report on the subject of wtc7. The report that changed numerous times and took 7 years to compile.

 

[Mr. Jones]

The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC Towers, so the sprinklers in Building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall office buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing—when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional.


NIST and the World Trade Center : News and Events

Name another building where that is true about the fires PLUS had the entire front of the building sheared off by two 110 story buildings.

Why do you constantly lie and exaggerate this BS? Why do you not get it through your head that even NIST says that the building would also have collapsed without any impact damage.
Videos show that WTC7′s walls remained straight during most of its collapse. How can that be, when a massive internal collapse was said to be occurring prior to its global collapse??
Apart from a single graphic of the penthouse sinking in the roof, there are no models of the top of the building during the collapse in the scenario with impact damage.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

Proponents of both hypotheses agree that the damage to WTC 7 sustained from the impact of debris from the collapse of the north tower (WTC 1) was not an initiating or determinative factor in the collapse.

You should be questioning the BS report if you had any real engineering experience that you claim to have, hell..those of us who don't, can reasonably figure out what the problems and the discrepancies are about, according to the complaints of the independent researchers.

How did the building manage to achieve free fall acceleration again??
What removed the resistance for 8 stories?
What prompted the expert engineers at NIST to change their story about this yet again?
Why did the "facade" 47 story structure NOT show any signs of a massive internal collapse, only the "penthouse"?

For someone who boasts of structural engineering prowess, you seem totally clueless, or willfully ignorant about the problems within the NIST report(s), and fail to consider the complaints researchers and other accomplished engineers have with it, you even resort to wild exaggerations and fabrications about the collapse that even go against the NIST theory that you claim to agree with.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...of-world-trade-center-7-case-far-from-closed/

 

[Rationalist1016]

The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC Towers, so the sprinklers in Building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall office buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing—when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional.


NIST and the World Trade Center : News and Events

Name another building where that is true about the fires PLUS had the entire front of the building sheared off by two 110 story buildings.

Why do you constantly lie and exaggerate this BS? Why do you not get it through your head that even NIST says that the building would also have collapsed without any impact damage.
Videos show that WTC7′s walls remained straight during most of its collapse. How can that be, when a massive internal collapse was said to be occurring prior to its global collapse??
Apart from a single graphic of the penthouse sinking in the roof, there are no models of the top of the building during the collapse in the scenario with impact damage.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

Proponents of both hypotheses agree that the damage to WTC 7 sustained from the impact of debris from the collapse of the north tower (WTC 1) was not an initiating or determinative factor in the collapse.

You should be questioning the BS report if you had any real engineering experience that you claim to have, hell..those of us who don't, can reasonably figure out what the problems and the discrepancies are about, according to the complaints of the independent researchers.

How did the building manage to achieve free fall acceleration again??
What removed the resistance for 8 stories?
What prompted the expert engineers at NIST to change their story about this yet again?
Why did the "facade" 47 story structure NOT show any signs of a massive internal collapse, only the "penthouse"?

For someone who boasts of structural engineering prowess, you seem totally clueless, or willfully ignorant about the problems within the NIST report(s), and fail to consider the complaints researchers and other accomplished engineers have with it, you even resort to wild exaggerations and fabrications about the collapse that even go against the NIST theory that you claim to agree with.

The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Case Far From Closed | Foreign Policy Journal

I'm not going to question your stance on the NIST report, because I think it has plenty of flaws myself.
My question would be, what is your take on all the statements made by firefighters, police, etc..., that the building was "fully involved", "had the southwest corner taken out", "had a huge bulge on one side, starting at 13th floor", "was creaking & groaning"?

When you read all those quotes, by people that were there and saw this with there own eyes, it really goes against any claims that the building was not that damaged and had very few fires. It sounds like there were many people that knew early on, that building was in trouble.

 

[eots]

Name another building where that is true about the fires PLUS had the entire front of the building sheared off by two 110 story buildings.

Why do you constantly lie and exaggerate this BS? Why do you not get it through your head that even NIST says that the building would also have collapsed without any impact damage.
Videos show that WTC7′s walls remained straight during most of its collapse. How can that be, when a massive internal collapse was said to be occurring prior to its global collapse??
Apart from a single graphic of the penthouse sinking in the roof, there are no models of the top of the building during the collapse in the scenario with impact damage.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

Proponents of both hypotheses agree that the damage to WTC 7 sustained from the impact of debris from the collapse of the north tower (WTC 1) was not an initiating or determinative factor in the collapse.

You should be questioning the BS report if you had any real engineering experience that you claim to have, hell..those of us who don't, can reasonably figure out what the problems and the discrepancies are about, according to the complaints of the independent researchers.

How did the building manage to achieve free fall acceleration again??
What removed the resistance for 8 stories?
What prompted the expert engineers at NIST to change their story about this yet again?
Why did the "facade" 47 story structure NOT show any signs of a massive internal collapse, only the "penthouse"?

For someone who boasts of structural engineering prowess, you seem totally clueless, or willfully ignorant about the problems within the NIST report(s), and fail to consider the complaints researchers and other accomplished engineers have with it, you even resort to wild exaggerations and fabrications about the collapse that even go against the NIST theory that you claim to agree with.

The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Case Far From Closed | Foreign Policy Journal

I'm not going to question your stance on the NIST report, because I think it has plenty of flaws myself.
My question would be, what is your take on all the statements made by firefighters, police, etc..., that the building was "fully involved", "had the southwest corner taken out", "had a huge bulge on one side, starting at 13th floor", "was creaking & groaning"?

When you read all those quotes, by people that were there and saw this with there own eyes, it really goes against any claims that the building was not that damaged and had very few fires. It sounds like there were many people that knew early on, that building was in trouble.

there is one video of one unidentified firemen making the statements you claim
but there are many more that say the very opposite..some that were much closer to the building

 

[Rationalist1016]

Why do you constantly lie and exaggerate this BS? Why do you not get it through your head that even NIST says that the building would also have collapsed without any impact damage.
Videos show that WTC7′s walls remained straight during most of its collapse. How can that be, when a massive internal collapse was said to be occurring prior to its global collapse??
Apart from a single graphic of the penthouse sinking in the roof, there are no models of the top of the building during the collapse in the scenario with impact damage.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

Proponents of both hypotheses agree that the damage to WTC 7 sustained from the impact of debris from the collapse of the north tower (WTC 1) was not an initiating or determinative factor in the collapse.

You should be questioning the BS report if you had any real engineering experience that you claim to have, hell..those of us who don't, can reasonably figure out what the problems and the discrepancies are about, according to the complaints of the independent researchers.

How did the building manage to achieve free fall acceleration again??
What removed the resistance for 8 stories?
What prompted the expert engineers at NIST to change their story about this yet again?
Why did the "facade" 47 story structure NOT show any signs of a massive internal collapse, only the "penthouse"?

For someone who boasts of structural engineering prowess, you seem totally clueless, or willfully ignorant about the problems within the NIST report(s), and fail to consider the complaints researchers and other accomplished engineers have with it, you even resort to wild exaggerations and fabrications about the collapse that even go against the NIST theory that you claim to agree with.

The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Case Far From Closed | Foreign Policy Journal

I'm not going to question your stance on the NIST report, because I think it has plenty of flaws myself.
My question would be, what is your take on all the statements made by firefighters, police, etc..., that the building was "fully involved", "had the southwest corner taken out", "had a huge bulge on one side, starting at 13th floor", "was creaking & groaning"?

When you read all those quotes, by people that were there and saw this with there own eyes, it really goes against any claims that the building was not that damaged and had very few fires. It sounds like there were many people that knew early on, that building was in trouble.

there is one video of one unidentified firemen making the statements you claim
but there are many more that say the very opposite..some that were much closer to the building

Well, I wasn't referring to videos. Not everything is videotaped. I was referring to published quotes.
Here are a couple examples:

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110081.PDF

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110018.PDF

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110207.PDF

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110222.PDF

9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110205.PDF

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance page 48.

11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings.
–M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance page 49

[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and whatnot. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110413.PDF

13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesn’t turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B survivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110261.PDF

16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance page 69

17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.
We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110103.PDF

Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable (just before collapse):
I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.
...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot.
So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.
He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.
Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.
Q: Would that be towards West Street?
A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west]
–Firefighter Gerard Suden http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110022.PDF

18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "Fuck 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110117.PDF

19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." The Longest Week

 

[daws101]

The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC Towers, so the sprinklers in Building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall office buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing—when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional.


NIST and the World Trade Center : News and Events

Name another building where that is true about the fires PLUS had the entire front of the building sheared off by two 110 story buildings.

Why do you constantly lie and exaggerate this BS? Why do you not get it through your head that even NIST says that the building would also have collapsed without any impact damage.
Videos show that WTC7′s walls remained straight during most of its collapse. How can that be, when a massive internal collapse was said to be occurring prior to its global collapse??
Apart from a single graphic of the penthouse sinking in the roof, there are no models of the top of the building during the collapse in the scenario with impact damage.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

Proponents of both hypotheses agree that the damage to WTC 7 sustained from the impact of debris from the collapse of the north tower (WTC 1) was not an initiating or determinative factor in the collapse.

You should be questioning the BS report if you had any real engineering experience that you claim to have, hell..those of us who don't, can reasonably figure out what the problems and the discrepancies are about, according to the complaints of the independent researchers.

How did the building manage to achieve free fall acceleration again??
What removed the resistance for 8 stories?
What prompted the expert engineers at NIST to change their story about this yet again?
Why did the "facade" 47 story structure NOT show any signs of a massive internal collapse, only the "penthouse"?

For someone who boasts of structural engineering prowess, you seem totally clueless, or willfully ignorant about the problems within the NIST report(s), and fail to consider the complaints researchers and other accomplished engineers have with it, you even resort to wild exaggerations and fabrications about the collapse that even go against the NIST theory that you claim to agree with.

The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Case Far From Closed | Foreign Policy Journal

talk about bs that link is is just more no credibility Babel now if it had been for MITor any good tech school you might have something.

 

[daws101]

I take it that very few if any of you twoofers have any construction or engineering experience?

 

[eots]

I'm not going to question your stance on the NIST report, because I think it has plenty of flaws myself.
My question would be, what is your take on all the statements made by firefighters, police, etc..., that the building was "fully involved", "had the southwest corner taken out", "had a huge bulge on one side, starting at 13th floor", "was creaking & groaning"?

When you read all those quotes, by people that were there and saw this with there own eyes, it really goes against any claims that the building was not that damaged and had very few fires. It sounds like there were many people that knew early on, that building was in trouble.

there is one video of one unidentified firemen making the statements you claim
but there are many more that say the very opposite..some that were much closer to the building

Well, I wasn't referring to videos. Not everything is videotaped. I was referring to published quotes.
Here are a couple examples:

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110081.PDF

video evidence clearly shows fires were not on all floors and there is no claim of bulges or leaning


2.

...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF

still no bulge or lean


3.

I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

again not accurate, we know the fires were not on all floors and NIST makes no claim that they were and still no lean no bulge

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110018.PDF

says nothing of relevance

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)


not according to NIST or video evidence


6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

no lean no bulge

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110207.PDF

not safe does not mean it is going to fall completely in secs

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110222.PDF

come down does not mean a complete collapse in secs

9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110205.PDF

so ?

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance page 48.

what fire chief ? where did he get this information ?

11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings.
–M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance page 49

so ?

[

Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

pancaking sound ?

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and whatnot. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110413.PDF

so ?

13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesn’t turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B survivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]

???

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110261.PDF

16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance page 69

17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.
We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110103.PDF

???

Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable (just before collapse):
I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.
...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot.
So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.
He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.
Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.
Q: Would that be towards West Street?
A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west]
–Firefighter Gerard Suden http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110022.PDF

????

18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "Fuck 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110117.PDF

19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, pprobably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." The Longest Week

so where are all these reports of budging and leaning ???

 

[daws101]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf
page 68

 

[eots]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf
page 68

you have something you wish to say ?

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNWkTyT6r3A]‪WTC 7 EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dNR6coGRTI]‪fires WTC7, CBS-Net Dub7 14.avi‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc&NR=1]‪Vince Dementri at WTC7, CBS-Net Dub7 08.avi‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4vI1DVjQ0M]‪Firefighters for 9/11 Truth - Erik Lawyer Speaks‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rationalist1016]

there is one video of one unidentified firemen making the statements you claim
but there are many more that say the very opposite..some that were much closer to the building

Well, I wasn't referring to videos. Not everything is videotaped. I was referring to published quotes.
Here are a couple examples:



video evidence clearly shows fires were not on all floors and there is no claim of bulges or leaning


2.

still no bulge or lean


3.

again not accurate, we know the fires were not on all floors and NIST makes no claim that they were and still no lean no bulge




says nothing of relevance

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)


not according to NIST or video evidence


6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

no lean no bulge




not safe does not mean it is going to fall completely in secs





come down does not mean a complete collapse in secs





so ?

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance page 48.

what fire chief ? where did he get this information ?




so ?

[

pancaking sound ?




so ?









???


????

20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." The Longest Week

so where are all these reports of budging and leaning ???

First of all, lets get our facts straight. I didn't say ANYTHING about "leaning". So, don't ask me to defend something that I didn't say.

Here is the quote about the bulge:

7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. –Firefighter Kevin Howe
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPIC/9110469.PDF
Hayden: 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."

Now, I wasn't looking for commentary on EACH quote.
My original question was actually posed to Mr. Jones. Because we have had some rational conversations in the past, and I was looking for another one.
What I am asking is, with all the claims by people on the scene, that say they knew early on that WTC7 was in serious trouble, what effect does this have on your thoughts of how the building collapsed.

I only posted a few of the quotes. There are many, many more. If you are interested in reading them, they are located here: eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires - wtc7lies

I'm not asking if you agree with everything in that document, just what the quotes of all these people do to your opinion of what happened? I reference this doc because most of the quotes have a link to where they came from.

 

[eots]

Well, I wasn't referring to videos. Not everything is videotaped. I was referring to published quotes.
Here are a couple examples:



video evidence clearly shows fires were not on all floors and there is no claim of bulges or leaning


2.

still no bulge or lean


3.

again not accurate, we know the fires were not on all floors and NIST makes no claim that they were and still no lean no bulge




says nothing of relevance

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)


not according to NIST or video evidence


6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

no lean no bulge




not safe does not mean it is going to fall completely in secs





come down does not mean a complete collapse in secs





so ?

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade www.thememoryhole.org / server maintenance page 48.

what fire chief ? where did he get this information ?




so ?

[

pancaking sound ?




so ?









???


????

so where are all these reports of budging and leaning ???

First of all, lets get our facts straight. I didn't say ANYTHING about "leaning". So, don't ask me to defend something that I didn't say.

Here is the quote about the bulge:

7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. –Firefighter Kevin Howe
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPIC/9110469.PDF
Hayden: 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."

Now, I wasn't looking for commentary on EACH quote.
My original question was actually posed to Mr. Jones. Because we have had some rational conversations in the past, and I was looking for another one.
What I am asking is, with all the claims by people on the scene, that say they knew early on that WTC7 was in serious trouble, what effect does this have on your thoughts of how the building collapsed.

I only posted a few of the quotes. There are many, many more. If you are interested in reading them, they are located here: eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires - wtc7lies

I'm not asking if you agree with everything in that document, just what the quotes of all these people do to your opinion of what happened? I reference this doc because most of the quotes have a link to where they came from.

there is a lot of testimony from first responders that conflicts with these statements, as well many of these statements are in conflict with NISTs column 79 Theory..so it does not really support the NIST theory or the symmetrical nature and speed of the collapse...because someone states in was dangeroues or there was danger of collapse does not mean they expected a 47 story building to collapse completely at near free-fall speed ,that would be a ridiculous assumption to make....btw your one quote of this bulge is the same one in the video

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc]‪9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE Mark Basile Chemical Engineer.m4v‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEQ1X7cN0So&feature=related]‪Robert McCoy (Architect) - "9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out" (AE911TRUTH) - Part 1/2‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? . . . NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." -- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan 2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.
The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites

 

[daws101]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf
page 68

you have something you wish to say ?

no need the report is self explanatory

 

[daws101]

‪WTC 7 EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY‬‏ - YouTube

it's odd how only the eyewitness that seem to count are the ones that you deem acceptable.
stranger still all of the twoofer witnesses have no credible hard evidence to back them up.
As any one who has ever been in court knows that eye and ear wittiness testimony is useless with out physical to bolster it.