Greetings to All:

Jim Meigs and the Popular Mechanic Editorial Staff have placed their Seismic Spike article above the WTC-7 story here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...tml?page=5#wtc7

The 911Truth is that our government has no precedent for any steel-frame skyscraper collapsing into its own footprint from building fires. Watch the short video ( http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg ) to gain some perspective on exactly what happened to WTC-7 on 9/11; what the government says happened from a few building fires. Then try to calculate the probability that a few building fires could transform this . . .



. . . into this small pile . . .



. . . in just a few hours where literally hundreds of massive steel connections had to be severed ‘simultaneously.’

We have the first three steel-framed skyscrapers to ever ‘supposedly’ collapse from building fires in the history of this planet on 9/11, which means they all share the same common denominators and explanations for their demise. Since WTC-7 was not struck by any Jetliner and did not suffer from massive building fires, then obviously the solution to this mystery has nothing to do with Jetliners or fires. Our Popular Mechanic Editors are once again more interested in discrediting the testimony of 911Truthers than anything else.

Quoting radio personalities is a poor substitute for presenting a ‘fact-filled’ thesis supporting informed conclusions for what really happened to the Twin Towers and WTC-7 on 9/11. The “161 (and growing) architectural and engineering professionals” at http://www.ae911truth.org represent far superior expert witnesses than any radio talk show host. Loyal Bushie Disinformation Artists focus their assaults on radio and TV personalities, instead of against the trained professionals actually qualified to provide expert testimony against the Official Bush Administration Cover Stories.

The video evidence shows WTC-7 collapsing “demolition-style” into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds, which matches the “demolition-style implosion” testimony above exactly. Tons of molten metal ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html ) were found under all three WTC demolished skyscrapers burning at 1500-degrees Celsius six and eight weeks after the 9/11 attacks! Dr. Steven Jones from Brigham Young University highlights this evidence in his famous paper:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm

Massive Pools of aluminum oxide/sulfur-rich Molten Metal found under ‘all three’ WTC collapsed skyscrapers represent clear “Controlled Demolition” signatures for all three cases. Typical building fires burn at around 800-degrees Fahrenheit ( http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe ) and exhaust available fuel sources in an average of only twenty minutes. Before attempting to throw dust and smoke into the air with all of the “Jetliner” and “Jet fuel” arguments from over 350 feet away, remember again that WTC-7 was struck by nothing remotely similar to any Jetliner; AND has the same Molten Metal pools found under all of the smoldering building debris. Thermite ( http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html ) burns at 2500-degrees Centigrade and cuts through solid structural steel like a hot knife through butter. Watch Dr. Jones’ Thermite explanations here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEoKhyXKWxQ

The question remains as to why these PM Editors never considered examination of ‘all’ the evidence pointing to the “Controlled Demolition” Explanation for the first three steel-framed skyscraper collapses, supposedly caused by building fires, in history. We have examples of other skyscrapers burning for more than a day:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/mad...ing_inferno.htm



You can clearly see this fire is completely out of control and burning like an inferno. Compare that fire to what you see in these unbroken windows where WTC-7 is collapsing at near ‘freefall’ speed:



The massive steel columns stand just inside these unbroken windows ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7pu1.jpg ), but we are supposed to believe they all reached the required 2800-degrees to soften and all at the very same time. WTC-7 was built using “Compartmentalization” ( http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch5.htm = 5.3.3 ) of all steel supports, which eliminates ‘building fires’ from being even a remote possibility for this collapse. Even if a few building fires did burn out of control (not), they were contained within solid concrete slabs horizontally and curtain walls vertically; not to mention the “3 hour spray-on” fireproofing insulation and gypsum wall-board protecting all the supporting columns. Even if every shred of these ‘fireproofing countermeasures’ were removed from the equation, buildings fires burn less than one third the required temperature to begin softening or melting any structural red-iron steel. The so-called experts have never told you that the components of an actual steel-framed network behave nothing like a single component part taken to a laboratory. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, which finds the energy from any building fire transported away from the fuel source and spread evenly throughout the entire network. This very important property of any steel-framed network is the reason these steel-framed buildings never collapse due to a building fire, because quite frankly that is very much impossible. You cannot introduce energy into the steel components of a steel-frame network quickly enough from building fires to melt one pound of structural steel. If this proven axiom were not 100 percent truth, then everyone living and working inside these steel-framed structures is living in grave danger of the next 911-like catastrophe. However, you have no reason to be concerned at all, because no steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire; including even WTC-7 and the Twin Towers taken down by Controlled Demolition.

If there were “no bombs” connected to the Twin Towers or WTC-7 collapses, then please explain the evidence of massive explosions taking place everywhere:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OkWTXz7tcn8 << Watch the 10 minute video.

Ask yourself why these PM Editors are ignoring all of this eyewitness testimony about “explosions” to concentrate your attention on charts and graphs from people without the smoke, fear and terror written all over their faces?? Jim Meigs and his “Loyal Bushie” Editorial Staff have access to the same images you are seeing in this single rebuttal to their disinformation propaganda. The eyewitness testimony in this video will reveal “boom, boom, boom, boom” synchronized explosions deliberately placed to bring the WTC skyscrapers down by “Controlled Demolition.” The Official Cover Story cronies are placed in the position of explaining why hundreds of explosions were witnessed in locations FAR from any building fire. Be assured that the cries and whimpering of these eyewitnesses to all these explosions prove they have NO concern for anything you show them from any of these seismic charts!

The “fire that rages for hours” claim is nothing but a Loyal Bushie LIE. We saw a real ‘raging fire’ in the Madrid skyscraper example ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Ter...madrid_fire.jpg ) that burned for more than a day, but the collapsing WTC-7 picture ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-20.jpg ) shows no sign of any building fire at all. Quoting a Loyal Bushie LIAR is only proof these PM Editors are going to great lengths to avoid any “Controlled Demolition” Explanation. The mentioned “Kink” is pictured here . . .



. . . and represents yet another distinct “Controlled Demolition” signature where the ‘center’ collapses ahead of the opposing sides. The idea of a setting a few building fires to run away and have this result is absolutely ludicrous. You can see the Stardust Hotel collapse in a similar way here (Kink = 00:32/01:22):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyDbiIx5ZYw

These PM Editors are talking out of their hat, because no “kink” ever formed on any steel-framed skyscraper collapsing due to fire in history.

These “light damage” findings have already been supported by the photographic and video evidence in this rebuttal. Again, these PM Editors are just as much in the Conspiracy Theory business as everyone with a 911Truth explanation.

This is nothing but more disinformation propaganda from a group of Loyal Bushie Editors attempting to ‘reverse-engineer’ a WTC-7 ‘building fire’ collapse from Bushie Administration conclusions. You cannot pile any building fire fuel source fast enough, or allow that to burn long enough, to melt one pound of WTC-7 structural ‘red iron’ steel. Even if the heat could penetrate the 3-hour ‘spray-on’ fireproofing countermeasures (which it could not), then the energy would travel to the adjacent columns and beams of the entire steel-framed network. The NIST cronies changing their minds back and forth again and again will never change that simple fact.

These are bogus claims supported by none of the actual evidence. Even if you transformed the entire south WTC-7 face into a fiery inferno, the other three sides of the skyscraper collapsed symmetrically at the very same time. These PM Editors and the NIST cronies are making a case for an ‘unsymmetrical collapse,’ when the video evidence states otherwise. Watch these three examples of real building implosions for similarities to the actual WTC-7 collapse:

Pulling It >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6633218138868662267

Pulling It >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2421326324041129616

Free Falling >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5360235832416833797

The PM Editors are in no way qualified make these kinds of characterizations about the “progressive collapse” of anything. This WTC-7 case has all the classic signs of any typical Controlled Demolition, which includes the massive explosions taking place throughout the day.

These Editors are describing a successful Controlled Demolition from any of the examples provided in this rebuttal.

This is more PM Editor and NIST nonsense. The columns and beams on the lower floors were carrying many times the weight of those on the top floors. WTC-7 was brought down by Controlled Demolition ( http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=14798 ) having nothing to do with any building fires at all. Remember their previous claim concerning the south wall: “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories . . .”. If the supposed fire was damaging a third of the face from the center to the bottom, then how did that travel all the way up to the roof to start this supposed chain reaction? The foolishness of these claims is verified in the picture of WTC-7 collapsing ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-20.jpg ) symmetrically and straight down into its own footprint without showing signs of even a broken window. Do not attempt to tell me the fire is on the other side of the building, because ‘this side’ is falling at the very same speed. We also see no sign of any pan caking of any floors from the top, which is just more Loyal Bushie nonsense.

Who among these PM Editors is willing to defend this nonsense? If challenged to a real debate with the architects and engineers from http://www.ae911truth.org , none of these Popular Mechanics armchair-engineers would have the courage to even show up. These PM Editors are attempting to convey information about the Cantilever Transfer Girders between the fifth and seventh floors on the North side. They also fail to mention the fact that these girders are up to 9-feet tall.



These PM Editors are intimating that Architectural and Engineering design flaws had something to do with the WTC-7 collapse, but in reality this skyscraper was WAY overbuilt and well capable of withstanding any building fire for days or even weeks. Remember again the reported fire was on the ‘South’ side of the building and these Cantilever Transfer Girders and placed on the North side. Enough said . . .

No firefighting? Larry Silverstein said,

How do we substantiate Larry Silverstein’s claims that the fire department commander was “not sure if they were gonna be able to contain the fire,” if nobody ever fought the fire over the course of this seven hour period???? Who in their right mind yells “Pull it!” to watch his 47-story steel-framed skyscraper come tumbling down into its own footprint, before anyone even tried to put out the fire? The FDNY was obviously not putting out any fires over at WTC-1 and WTC-2, because those buildings were already ‘pulled’ earlier that same morning. Anyone looking at the North side of WTC-7 might never believe any firefighting was required at all, which lends more credibility to the “Controlled Demolition” Explanation all the time. Even if the fuel tanks were breached and detonated with high explosives, you could not pack enough hydrocarbon fuel into the entire room to melt 2800-degree structural steel. Gasoline and other petroleum fuels are poor tools for melting or severing structural steel in any quantity, because they burn far too quickly and at low temperatures to even be considered part of the ‘building fire’ explanation. These Loyal Bushie “Building Fire” Editors are grasping at straws without even realizing a zero probability is attached to their conjecture. Demolition crews go through tons of meticulous planning and execution of that plan, before the day finally arrives to ‘pull’ the building down. If these massive structures could possibly be brought down from a few building fires and tanks of diesel fuel (not), then all of the Controlled Demolition specialists on earth would be out of business. For these PM Editors to even suggest that ‘all’ of these 2800-degree structural steel connections could be ‘severed’ simultaneously from building fires and diesel fuel proves beyond all doubt that they haven’t the slightest clue . . .

This kind of explanation for the WTC-7 collapse is nothing short of hilarious. Their readers are just supposed to believe gasoline has enough stored energy to sever 2800-degree structural steel connections. Their ‘current working hypothesis’ is nothing more than a Loyal Bushie LIE they continue telling themselves over and over again . . .

This is the PM Editorial Staff conclusion based upon no historical precedent and no physical evidence whatsoever. How was sufficient energy transferred from their diesel tanks to the supporting columns, beams, girders and bar-joists to sever ‘all’ WTC-7 structural steel at the very same time? Even if a fire did start from these diesel tanks, then how did the fire break through and penetrate the concrete slabs and curtain walls of that compartmentalized section? The fact is that WTC-7 never experienced the kind of raging fire you saw in the Madrid case ( http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/mad...ing_inferno.htm ), but all the steel connections up and down the entire 47-story frame were ‘severed’ to allow the entire building to collapse ‘demolition-style’ into an extremely small and deliberate pile. You will live the rest of your life without seeing a steel-framed skyscraper collapse into a little pile from any building fire, because once again that is very much impossible.

The 911Truth will set you free. Believe it.

Terral

Thanks, Terral, for a well -linked post.

I disagree with one point -- about Arthur Lerner-Lam's assessment of the seismic spikes accompanying the destruction/demolition of the towers.

The large peaks in the seismograph were associated with the 'onset' of the mass of the towers striking the earth. This is a working hypothesis. since the debris struck the earth in waves of falling steel (and powdered concrete, cough) - a sharp single spike seems surprising.

The explosive hypothesis has not been fully ruled out by the seismograph.

Apparently the seismic traces are simply an 'output' of data which is Fourier-transformed. The signature of high-energy explosives in the original non-Fourier transformed state might be visible, if one could get the original data from Wang or Lerner Lam at Columbia.

Hi Jack:

You are right and I am wrong. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I will be going back to edit my comments, because a mistake was made on my part at the very beginning. I went through and copied many Popular Mechanic articles a few days ago beginning here on page 1 ( http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=1 ) as separate Word documents to save each separately. I reached over to the “WTC-7” link ( http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...tml?page=5#wtc7 ) and inadvertently ‘cut and pasted’ the “Seismic Spike” story along with the WTC article. :0) I woke up Sunday morning at about 4 am and began writing the rebuttal and did not realize my mistake until the whole thing was posted. Unfortunately for me, most of my WTC-7 opening preparation material was obviously interwoven into the “Seismic Spike” Popular Mechanic disinformation. Therefore, the seismic spike data is irrelevant to the WTC-7 case, but important to the Twin Towers controlled demolitions. I modified many of my statements late yesterday, but became consumed with other projects until now. Thank you for pointing out an area that requires my attention. :0)

Terral

Terral

If Silverstone did not have a discussion with the Fire chief telling the chief to Pull It - then shows us when the Fire chief claims he never had that conversation with Silverstone and no one from his department did either.

See, that would be evidence.

The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Appendix L pg 18 [22 on pg counter] http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"


Evidence that the '10 story gouge' was a misinterpretation of the actual damage

pg 18
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed."
[a gouge floor 10 to the ground would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby 60 to 80 feet wide from the south facade to the elevators]

“debris damage across ¼ width of the south face, starting several stories above the atrium.”
[cannot co-exist with – gouge, floor 10 to the ground]

“the atrium glass [ground to floor 5] was still intact"
[cannot co-exist with – gouge, floor 10 to the ground]


FEMA Chapter 5 pg 20
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
“According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WCT 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner."

Oral Histories: Chief Frank Fellini
[in charge of operations at West and Vesey]
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html...es_full_01.html
“When it fell [WTC 1] it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors.....”
[Do you think he did not notice a gouge, 120 feet high, 60 to 80 feet wide, and 30 to 40 feet deep, in the middle of WTC 7 ?]

NIST ignored the three statements on the same page that were in conflict with the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground" and the statement in the FEMA report.

They then showed this 'damage' in the graphic on pg 23 as "Possible region of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate region of impact damage"

In the Summary item 3) they describe the damage attributed to this gouge [columns 69, 72 and 75] as Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

False

NIST Apx. L pg 36
I3.1 Perimeter Moment Frame Arrests Failure Progression: Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

This is a LIE
There were NO reports of fire on the 5th floor!

There were NO diesel fuel fires in the east end of WTC 7 where the initiating event* took place.

* See NIST Apx. L pg 31 – 34 [35 – 38 on pg counter]
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf


FEMA pg 28
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

[emphasis mine]
"Fuel oil was distributed through the 5th floor in a double-wall iron pipe.
A portion of the piping was in close proximity to Truss 1.
However, there is no physical photographic or other evidence to substantiate or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system.

The following is, therefore, a hypothesis based on potential rather than demonstrated fact.
Assume that the distribution piping system was severed and discharged up to 75 gpm onto the 5th floor in the vicinity of Truss 1."

Pg 29
Although there is no physical evidence available, this hypothesis assumes that it is possible that both the inner and outer pipes were severed


Testimony of Dr. S. Shyam Sunder
Acting Director, Building and Fire Research Laboratory
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf

Page 3 [on page counter]
"One possibility being considered in the NIST working hypothesis....impact......may have resulted in fractures
in the fuel piping system..........at the valve box would release fuel under pressure that, if ignited,......."
[pipes would have fractured at the south west generator room where the damage was, not the north east generator room at the other end of the building]

Pg 180 [11 on the pg counter]
"valve box......near generator #1"

Pg 181
"very near column #79"

i.e. in the generator room.

The east generator room was in the north east corner of WTC 7 on the 5th floor.
The supply pipe for the east generator room was north of the core area, 90 feet from the south side of the building.

All the other diesel tanks, pumps, risers, distribution pipes were in the west half of WTC 7
[FEMA pg 14 - 15]

If the generators were running, the louver vents would be open. [FEMA pg 29]
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/9176/e5nk6.jpg

If there was a fire in this room, smoke would be pouring out thru the exhaust vents.
If the generators were off, the louvers would be closed and a fire would have no supply of oxygen.

The whole thing about fuel oil [diesel] causing Truss 1 to fail is an ASSUMPTION based on nothing!

Hi Chris:

WoW!!! Thank you for the excellent post above. Your knowledge of the details on these WTC cases appears FAR superior to my own. If you are not currently a member at http://www.ae911truth.org , then I hope you will consider filling out an application. Please feel free to offer critical analysis to any of my explanations on any of these related 911Truth topics. Sometimes I am thickheaded and cannot see the forest for all the trees involving some of the finer details. Any assistance you can provide is greatly appreciated in our journey towards the 911Truth.

Thanks again,

Terral

Terral, I agree that we sometimes focus on the trees and not the forest.

What is the probability that given these facts about WTC7:

-Random damage to only one side and one corner due to falling debris.
-Random fires on a few floors.

Will result in this after 8 hours:

-Universal symmetric collapse into its own foot print in under 7 seconds.

Is such a sequence of events even possible? If so what is the probability?

Now compare that probability with controlled demolition. Which scenario has better odds and by how much?

Common sense tells me that Random + Random cannot equal Symmetric unless it beats astronomical odds. What is your take?

It boggles my mind how debunkers adamantly support a highly improbable, if not impossible theory (OCT), while a much more probable theory of controlled demolition is rejected.

There was no debris damage in the area of the initiating event* that led to the implosion of WTC 7.

* NIST Apx. L pg 31 – 34 [35 – 38 on pg counter]
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1337/area...ingeventli5.png


Debris damage:

- Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18 [NIST Apx. L pg 18 – pg 22 on pg counter]

- Damage starting at roof level…5 to 10 floors…near south west corner [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Large debris hole near center of the south face around floor 14 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
- [just west of center*]

- South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground [NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]

- No heavy debris in lobby area [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
- debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the
atrium, noted that the atrium glass (ground to 5th floor) was still intact

- The only damage to the 9th floor south face occurred at the southwest corner [FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20]
Other damage

- 8th or 9th Floor…2 elevator cars ejected into hallway north of elevator shaft, visible portion of south wall was gone...
…possibly damage extending to the west [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

Explosion heard on floor 8
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=64...wtc7+new+footag
Start at 6:20 min.
[Warning: audio very loud and distorted, turn down volume before viewing]

* Steve Spak photograph with location of perimeter columns and floors added graphically.
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/8929/di...ntfloorszp4.png

Looking from southeast corner of the south face:
Fire was seen on floor 12 on the south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke. [NIST Apx. L pg 24]
[the face below floor 12 was not covered by smoke]

No debris heavy damage to east half of south face was reported

Debris would have to enter between columns 8 and 11 (Spak#) to damage the core columns in the area of the initiating event.
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4392/sfacegraphic3vi7.jpg

References:

NIST Appendix L
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
[note: pg 18 is pg 22 on the page counter]

NIST Final 4-5-05
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%...pse%20Final.pdf

FEMA Chapter 5
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

< img src= "http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Magnum11.jpg" alt="Fire"> Does that look like "a few building fires" to you?

From Popular Mechanics:

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

The question Popular Mechanics ignores is:

Why did the NIST claim the seismic activity was the result of the debris hitting the ground when the seismograph clearly shows a seismic peak 5 seconds after the collapse started and before a single piece of debris had hit the ground?











NOTES:
1. The unannotated original of the above chart is available from LCSN labs .
2. The red-lined annotations in the above chart are based on the following five data points supplied by the LCSN seismic labs:
a. The time of initial seismic rupture at the WTC tower was 9:59:04 EST.
b. The duration of the seismic signal of the collapse was 10 sec.
c. The distance from the WTC towers to the LCSN seismometer in Palisades, NY ("PAL") is 34km .
d. The velocity of the seismic waves transiting that distance was 2km per second.
e. The origin time on the zero axis of of the LCSN chart is 9:59:07 EST.

I have one very simple question. How does a building that collapses into it's own footprint damage other buildings around it? How did WTC 7 cause extensive damage to Fiterman Hall of the Borough of Manhattan Community College if it collapsed into it's own footprint?

Here's two more simple questions. Have any steel framed skyscrapers that have suffered from raging fires had the same design as WTC 1, WTC 2, or WTC 7 and have any steel framed skyscrapers besides WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 ever been hit by Boeing 767's going 500 mph or been hit by debris from another collapsing skyscraper?

Google WTC 1975 fire.

Yes I'm aware of that fire but you ignored the second half of my question. A speeding Boeing 767 did not cause the fire that took place in the North Tower in 1975. Thus there was no prior structural damage. How is the 1975 fire similar at all to what happened to the North Tower in 2001?

It was too tall and there was too much of it to land entirely within its own footprint.

Remember, this was done without permits and damage to the surrounding buildings was not a consideration.

no and no


ETA: honway, excellent post on seismic peak.
URL ?

Have you looked at any pictures of the south side of WTC 7 or read any of the statements by firefighters who were on the scene such as Chief Daniel Nigro?

Chief Daniel Nigro?

What tribe is he with?

Seriously though, how many decent pictures of the south side of WTC 7 have you viewed cozmo?

And Chief Daniel Nigro, hmm. let's see, he is beholding to administration concerns, he's never experienced the high speed, complete collapse of concrete and steel buildings prior to 9/11, he's not a structural engineer, he's viewing a building exhibiting for the most part, a lot of smoke, and now he's passing along the message to subordinate firefighters to be aware that WTC7 is expected to collapse and that he wants them to clear the area.

Meanwhile you ignore what actually occurs and place your trust in a "playing it safe" speculative response of those people at the greatest risk who had to explain the reasoning for their not fighting the fires in WTC7?


MM

Since you answered no to both of those questions and that is the correct answer perhaps you can tell me why it makes sense for people to compare dissimilar cases when making their arguments for controlled demolition as Terall brought up in his post when he showed a picture of another high rise building suffering from a raging fire.

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/k...es/image001.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7MoreSmoke.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/ZafarWTC7.jpg

I mentioned Nigro only as an example. How about James Mcglynn who said "...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."(src: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...IC/9110447.PDF

Here's what Nigro himself said about that day- "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt." (src: http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/ar...html?id=158400

Whose word exactly was Nigro passing on? He was the one in charge of operations.

Well I'm sorry cozmo but "creaking" is not a definitive sound. It's not like all was silent but for the WTC7 towering inferno and it's deathly "creaking". WTC 5 which was just to the east of WTC 7 was a blazing and heavily smoking inferno as well. WTC 6 I believe was so badly devasted that it had to be pulled down by cables. All these structures were suffering various fires, expanding gases, breaking windows, weakening supports and floors etc. The sound of "creaking" was hardly indicative of an imminent sign that a 47-story building was a candidate for a complete, high speed, symmetrical collapse.

Your image links are all very familiar here and they show the smoke but they don't show a building totally involved by fire!. There are a few photos showing flames in maybe 8 or 9 windows. No fire fighter was quoted as expecting WTC7 to collapse in the spectacular manner in which it did.

Whose word was Nigro passing along? Who knows? You ask me to speculate. Someone in his position would be approachable by city management. A few well placed words of advice by higher ups. For instance, the message that engineers had determined WTC7 was likely to fail..I can easily imagine many scenarios where the word could have been passed to Nigro and then he took ownership of the "clear the area" order.

If it was okay with his masters to evacuate the area than Nigro was free of any responsibility for removing the firefighters from WTC7.

MM

Yes

Chiefs Fellini, Hayden and Nigro thought WTC 7 would collapse, Chief Norman did not.

They did not consult a structural engineer, as was done at the Meridian Plaza fire.

They had just seen the towers collapse and knew that hundreds of their brothers were dead.

Hayden summed it up quite eloquently:
"Fuck 'em all. Let 'em burn. Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers."


If you look thru the smokescreen* at the south west corner in the videos and photos, you can see that there is no damage or fire east of center.
Most of the area above floor 10 is visible at one time or another.

*Fires are random and follow the fuel.
The odds that almost every floor on the south west corner burned for hours and only spread to the east face on a few floors are somewhere between no-way and fagidaboudit.

For the record I didn't ask you to speculate. You did that on your own when you said someone gave him an order to evacuate his men from the area. When I ask you who you say I'm asking you to speculate. I'm just asking you to back up your statement with something, anything. You say that no firefighters expected that WTC 7 would collapse even though I just gave you the words of the man in charge on the scene who contradicts that. Would you like another one- "The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing." Frank Fellini- Fire Chief (F.D.N.Y.) (src: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110217.PDF

Here's another one- "We were then positioned on Vesey Street between North End and the West Side Highway because there was an imminent collapse on 7 World Trade, and it did collapse." Brian Fitzpatrick- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.), Ladder 22 (src: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110256.PDF

Another- "There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse." Ray Goldbach -- Fire Captain (F.D.N.Y.), Executive Assistant to the Fire Commissioner (src: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110150.PDF

There are a number of others and I can keep going but you get the idea. Is everyone just lying?

Chief Fellini was in charge of operation at West and Vesey.
He noted the steel ripped out from between the 3rd and 6th floors and the fires as his reasons for thinking WTC 7 was going to collapse.

If the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground", he would have mentioned it.

Like all the others, he heard it thru the grapevine.

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, on WTC 7:
The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.

Chief Nigro said "The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt."

He based his decision on what he heard, not what he saw.


In Gravy's list of over 100 quotes, only Chief Fellini said he thought WTC 7 would collapse.

Yes, it's called Sophistry.

No

You are trying to use the emotion of the firefighters statements as evidence.


Here's the evidence:


There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the initiating event.
[the failure of core column 79, 80 and/or 81]

Fires in east half of WTC 7

NIST
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12, moved toward the east face
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner, progressing north

As of 3:00 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.

Some time later, fires on 8 and 13


A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F, and 3 or 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle.

There is no evidence that the initiating event was caused by fire.

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.



That's the evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building,

and fires that a burned on a few floors, for a few hours, at different times, in the area where the collapse began.

I'm not entirely sure how I'm using the firefighters emotions as evidence. I'm simply quoting their statements about what happened that day regarding WTC 7. As for your selective presentation of evidence from NIST I refer you to this-

"Observed Fire Locations ( Observed Fire Locations (11:30 11:30-2:30 pm) 2:30 pm)
General
No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby
No signs of fire or smoke below floor 6 from stairwell and lobby areas
Fire reported at west wall of floor 7 around 12:15 pm
In east stairwell, smoke was observed near floors 19-20; signs of a fire
observed on floor 23
Looking from southwest corner to the south face
Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11
Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s
Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed
Looking from southeast corner to the south face
Fire on floor 12;1 area above covered with smoke
Fire on floors 11-121 moved to east face and progressed to the north"

src: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%...pse%20Final.pdf

If the Truss Fire theory is to be believed, then anyone with knowledge of the building could place their charges upon thos