Mayor Giuliani warning about the collapses

[MG1962]

I am being told by a CTer that Mayor Giuliani, was interviewed some thirty minutes before the first collapse, and said then the towers where going to come down.

Does anyone remember such an interview (claimed to have been on ABC)

If not - Does any one know when fears did start to be expressed the towers might collapse?

And assuming the answer to the above is correct. Any idea who decided it could be an issue.

I have tried googling, and found one interview after the fact but it doesn't mention when the Mayor was told, and I cant provide the link because I dont have enough posts yet :(

Thanks in advance

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Some engineers have recalled in interviews feeling or predicting that the towers would collapse, given the obvious structural damage and raging fires.

It's likely Guiliani heard from one of them and related what he was told.

[MG1962]

Thanks - I suspected something like that. But you know the CT mind set. Unless I can offer a direct quote, including the persons political affilations for the last 20 years and checkable DNA samples from all their children and pets. Then I wont be believed lol

[firecoins]

The NYPD aviation unit...the NYPS in the helicopter circleing the building predicted the towers would fall and gave an evac order to NYPD in the towers. Bernard Kerac, the head of the NYPD, was with Guiliani the whole time.

[Moochie]

I have a sample of D. Avery's DNA -- It's alien :)

M.

[Gravy]

The NYPD aviation unit...the NYPS in the helicopter circleing the building predicted the towers would fall and gave an evac order to NYPD in the towers. Bernard Kerac, the head of the NYPD, was with Guiliani the whole time.
This was true for the north tower, the second to fall, but I haven't read of any such warnings about the south tower.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This was true for the north tower, the second to fall, but I haven't read of any such warnings about the south tower.

I'm not sure, but I think I read somewhere that Allyn Kilsheimer predicted the collapse before the first one fell.

[Gravy]

I'm not sure, but I think I read somewhere that Allyn Kilsheimer predicted the collapse before the first one fell.
I think he said he believed they would fall, but being in D.C., he wasn't in a position to do anything. I was responding to the reports from the helicopter. Mark Loizeaux of CDI says he was watching the fires on TV and called the FDNY and OEM to tell them that he didn't think the buildings would stand, but he couldn't get through.

[LashL]

This was true for the north tower, the second to fall, but I haven't read of any such warnings about the south tower.

I'm pretty sure I read that there was a warning just before the south tower fell that "these buildings (referring to both towers) are in imminent danger of collapse". I think it was a guy named Zarillo who had received that message or what charged with delivering that message from the building dept engineers to Chief Ganci.

I'll look it up but that's what I recall from the Dwyer and Flynn book "102 Minutes".

[LashL]

I looked it up. According to the book cited above, it appears that an engineer from the Department of Buildings reported that the structural damage to the towers appeared to be immense and that the stability of both buildings was compromised. He was, though, particularly worried about how long the north tower would stand.

John Peruggia, a fire dept delegate who was in on this meeting of emergency response officials in the lobby of WTC7, heeded the warnings from the building dept engineer despite the previous conventional wisdom about the strength of the buildings and summoned Rich Zarillo, an EMT, who was working for him as an aide, to go to the command post where Chief Ganci was located and deliver the message.

"You see Chief Ganci, and Chief Ganci only," Peruggia said. "Provide him with the information that the building integrity is severely compromised and they believe the building is in danger of of imminent collapse."

When Zarillo got there, he gave the message that the buildings were near collapse to Chief Ganci's aide, Fire Marshall Steve Mosiello.

Mosiello turned to his boss, a few steps away, and said, "Chief, these buildings are in imminent danger of collapse."

Ganci looked stunned and asked, "Who would tell you something like that?"

Mosiello turned to Zarillo and said, "Richie, come over here and tell the chief what you just told me."

Right after Ganci heard the message delivered by Rich Zarillo about the threat of imminent collapse, a gathering rumble filled the air. "What the f*** was that?, Ganci asked. A glance at the south tower, its top dissolving into smoke, answered his question.


As noted above, that is from the Dwyer and Flynn book. I haven't seen anything that suggests that the NYPD aerial crews reported on the imminent collapse of the south tower, only the north. But it does appear that the engineers on the ground were worried about the collapse of both towers early on. Unfortunately, not soon enough in the case of the south tower.


Edit to add: the meeting that Peruggia was at took place as part of his duties on the OEM team, so it is logical to assume that Guiliani would have heard about the info from the building dept engineer regarding the danger of collapse at the same time. The time of this exchange is not given in the book, but it says that Peruggia had to then contact Zarillo (to fill him in and give him instructions, presumably) and that Zarillo couldn't get to Chief Ganzi's location easily due to the flaming debris and falling bodies, so it seems it took a period of time for him to get there.

From the timeline, it seems that Zarillo didn't get there until after Chief Palmer had made it to the 78th floor of the south tower and after Kevin Cosgrove called his brother, and after Rick Thorpe called 911 saying that people on 106 were passing out, and after Greg Milanowycz called his father, and just at the time that Kevin Cosgrove was on the phone to 911.

In other words, only moments before the south tower collapsed. But it is impossible from this account to determine the time that the building dept engineer gave the word that the buildings were in danger of imminent collapse.

[LashL]

I am being told by a CTer that Mayor Giuliani, was interviewed some thirty minutes before the first collapse, and said then the towers where going to come down.


Hi MG,

1) Welcome to the forum.

2) If a CTer is making that claim, ask the CTer to provide evidence of the interview and evidence of the time of the interview to back up his/her claim.

[MG1962]

[Hi MG,

1) Welcome to the forum.

2) If a CTer is making that claim, ask the CTer to provide evidence of the interview and evidence of the time of the interview to back up his/her claim.


Thanks for the welcome. And trust me I already have asked. But do like to know the answer to the question before I ask it :)

And thanks for your response in the previous post to by the way.

[defaultdotxbe]

I think he said he believed they would fall, but being in D.C., he wasn't in a position to do anything. I was responding to the reports from the helicopter. Mark Loizeaux of CDI says he was watching the fires on TV and called the FDNY and OEM to tell them that he didn't think the buildings would stand, but he couldn't get through.
i believe Loizeaux also figured the south tower would fall first because it was hit lower down

this is another good example of CT spin, they claim no one expected the towers to fall, therefore they shouldnt have fallen (a logical fallacy in itself) then when shown evidence that people did expect them to fall, they cite it as proof that those individuals knew about the explosives

[rwguinn]

i believe Loizeaux also figured the south tower would fall first because it was hit lower down

this is another good example of CT spin, they claim no one expected the towers to fall, therefore they shouldnt have fallen (a logical fallacy in itself) then when shown evidence that people did expect them to fall, they cite it as proof that those individuals knew about the explosives
He**;
I was in Roswell, New Mexico, watching it on TV with a half dozen other engineers, and we all became concerned that they were coming down--some time before they actually did!
And not a precognitive in the bunch, I might add.

[defaultdotxbe]

He**;
I was in Roswell, New Mexico, watching it on TV with a half dozen other engineers, and we all became concerned that they were coming down--some time before they actually did!
And not a precognitive in the bunch, I might add.
well that proves your a govt shill and you and all your shill buddies must have known about the planned demolition

:D

[kc440_]

John Peruggia, a fire dept delegate who was in on this meeting of emergency response officials in the lobby of WTC7, heeded the warnings from the building dept engineer despite the previous conventional wisdom about the strength of the buildings and summoned Rich Zarillo, an EMT, who was working for him as an aide, to go to the command post where Chief Ganci was located and deliver the message.

But why did WTC 7 collapse? News footage I've seen certainly looks like demolition. And Silverstein told officials to "pull it." There was no reason for that building to collapse. The fire was small and contained. :eek:

kc440

[jujigatami]

There was not a person there that day, that saw the towers after the planes hit that DIDN'T think they were going to fall.

I remember looking at the flaming hole in the south tower and thinking "I can't believe it didn't fall right away".

Sure we all tried to convince ourselves that that couldn't happen, but EVERYONE knew they were going to come down, the question was when.

[R.Mackey]

But why did WTC 7 collapse? News footage I've seen certainly looks like demolition. And Silverstein told officials to "pull it." There was no reason for that building to collapse. The fire was small and contained.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

Every single statement you just made is wrong. That's why.

[firecoins]

But why did WTC 7 collapse? News footage I've seen certainly looks like demolition. And Silverstein told officials to "pull it." There was no reason for that building to collapse. The fire was small and contained. :eek:

kc440
Larry Silverstein was talking to the FDNY. The FDNY does not "pull" buildings.

WTC 7 was badly damaged, not lightly damaged. WTC #1 did not fall into itself. Debris from tower 1 fell at 120mph into nearby buildings including WTC#7.

[LashL]

Thanks for the welcome. And trust me I already have asked. But do like to know the answer to the question before I ask it :)

And thanks for your response in the previous post to by the way.

You're most welcome, MG1962, on both counts.

And yes, I agree with you that it is always good to know the answer before you ask the question. In my line of work, in fact, it's a rule of thumb that is ignored only to one's peril. :)

[LashL]

But why did WTC 7 collapse? News footage I've seen certainly looks like demolition. And Silverstein told officials to "pull it." There was no reason for that building to collapse. The fire was small and contained. :eek:

kc440

Oh, boy. How many erroneous statements can you make in a single post?

The final report on WTC7 is not yet complete, but the working hypothesis seems rational and reasonable in light of the known facts and evidence. That is, that it collapsed due to a combination of structural damage caused by the collapse of the towers and the unchecked fires that burned within it for several hours.

Silverstein's comment had absolutely nothing to do with controlled demolition.

The fires were neither small nor contained. The firefighters who were on the scene described massive fires on numerous floors, and also described the lack of firefighting capability within the building due to broken water mains etc. as a result of the collapse of the towers.

The videos of the collapse do not show the bottom third of the building, which is understandable given that the area was a mess by then and there were no good vantage points for filming that could show the complete picture.

I'd suggest that you try to expand your google skills beyond conspiracy theory sites, and try to look at facts and evidence instead of just buying into nonsense like that.

[NoZed Avenger]

But why did WTC 7 collapse? News footage I've seen certainly looks like demolition. And Silverstein told officials to "pull it." There was no reason for that building to collapse. The fire was small and contained. :eek:


There used to be three levels of wrong: wrong, wronger, and wrongest.

This may be a new, fourth category.

[gfunkusarelius]

sometimes i think people come on here, do a search for any threads that have the keywords like collapse, wtc, demolition, etc and then just copy and paste the same old arguments and then go to bed or watch tv while they rest content in the knowledge that we will all respond to the same nonsense that has been debunked hundreds of times.
:)

[Loss Leader]

And Silverstein told officials to "pull it."

Actually, Silverstein told reporters that he told the FDNY to "pull it." There's a huge difference. If Silverstein were in on the conspiracy, if he knew the building was rigged with explosives, if he had the power to order the demolition of the building, and if he actually did direct the FDNY to demolish his own building for the insurance proceeds, why in HEAVEN'S NAME would he admit it to reporters?

In fact, the entire original interview makes clear that the FDNY had been in close communication regarding their efforts in WTC7 all day. They came to him and advised that they thought the building was going to collapse, they could not save the building and that further efforts would needlessly endanger the lives of firefighters. They asked him what he wanted to do about the operation and Silverstein told them to "pull it."

It' just not evidence of anything.

[CptColumbo]

There used to be three levels of wrong: wrong, wronger, and wrongest.

This may be a new, fourth category.
Wrongerer?
I think you have to start adding adjectives. Utterly, completely, unbelievably.

[Rob Lister]

wrongeresterest...but I don't bother with the debate because I know that it is futile.

Rather, I egg them on.

[RenaissanceBiker]

I'm not sure, but I think I read somewhere that Allyn Kilsheimer predicted the collapse before the first one fell.

I predicted the collapse before the first one fell. Of course, I was standing in a room full of engineers in Alabama watching it on TV. It was terrible feeling that maybe those there didn't know it. Do these guys see a conspiracy in the sunrise each morning?

[tsig]

But why did WTC 7 collapse? News footage I've seen certainly looks like demolition. And Silverstein told officials to "pull it." There was no reason for that building to collapse. The fire was small and contained. :eek:

kc440

I'm sure that your trained eye trumps all the experts and thier nasty figures.

Thanks for setting us all straight.

Some of us here were trying to throw Presidents out of office before you were born. (Nixon)

[Hellbound]

WTC 7 didn't collapse. The Earth fell on its roof. From below. Seriously, it's relativity and everything. Quatum vibrations, you know. Homeopathic nano-thermite.

[Bell]

WTC 7 didn't collapse. The Earth fell on its roof. From below. Seriously, it's relativity and everything. Quatum vibrations, you know. Homeopathic nano-thermite.

Thank you, Huntsman. I was just thinking about that (for real). Now, let's work from there.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Wrongerer?
I think you have to start adding adjectives. Utterly, completely, unbelievably.

Verbing weirds things.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I thought JREFs and OCTs were interested in facts and evidence. All these posts and nobody even cares to find out what Giuliani actually said, to whom, when, and in what context?

Giuliani was talking to Peter Jennings on ABC about 9/11, I'm not sure exactly when, but shortly after 9/11, and he said this:

I .. I went down to the scene and we set up a headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit, got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us. -Rudy Giuliani



Now, considering that no skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire, it seems odd that someone knew it was "going to collapse".

It's also odd that he was operating out of 75 Barkley street, when his bunker in WTC7 was especially designed as a command center for just such emergencies.

[Shrinker]

I thought JREFs and OCTs were interested in facts and evidence. All these posts and nobody even cares to find out what Giuliani actually said, to whom, when, and in what context?

Giuliani was talking to Peter Jennings on ABC about 9/11, I'm not sure exactly when, but shortly after 9/11, and he said this:


Now, considering that no skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire, it seems odd that someone knew it was "going to collapse".

It's also odd that he was operating out of 75 Barkley street, when his bunker in WTC7 was especially designed as a command center for just such emergencies.

Wow, you're really bad at this.

"Hey the WTC is under attack, get me to my bunker in the WTC!".

"And quick, find out if the towers are going to collapse!"
"How?"
"Has one ever collapsed before?"
"Don't think so."
"Then one never will, we're safe!"

ETA: Besides, wasn't this whole collapse issue resolved ages ago when you abandoned your debate against chipmunk stew?

[MRC_Hans]

Now, considering that no skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire, it seems odd that someone knew it was "going to collapse".

It's also odd that he was operating out of 75 Barkley street, when his bunker in WTC7 was especially designed as a command center for just such emergencies.100% of all skyscrapers hit by airliners have subesquently collapsed.

Oh, so since he didn't use his bunker, but put himself in greater danger, this means that he had ... that he ..... wait ...... mmm ...

Hans :nope:

[firecoins]

I am curious here. Guiliani didn't go thte bunker in the WTC because the WTC was under attack. This seems pretty obvious. It was a controversey to have the bunker in the WTC before 9/11 because of the 1993 attack at the WTC.

George Bush wasn't rushed out of the Fl. elemantary school because he was told the WTC in New York was under attack. I think he figured well the WTC in NYC and I am in FL. there is no need to panick. I am probably at safe enough distance.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I thought JREFs and OCTs were interested in facts and evidence. All these posts and nobody even cares to find out what Giuliani actually said, to whom, when, and in what context?

Giuliani was talking to Peter Jennings on ABC about 9/11, I'm not sure exactly when, but shortly after 9/11, and he said this:


Now, considering that no skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire, it seems odd that someone knew it was "going to collapse".

It's also odd that he was operating out of 75 Barkley street, when his bunker in WTC7 was especially designed as a command center for just such emergencies.

Of course you find Guilianis comments and behavior unusual. Guiliani obviously consulted with engineers and followed thier counsel. These engineers made thier assesments based upon thier years of training, education and experience.

You, on the other hand, have no training, no education and no experience. And you refuse to associate with those who do.

That Guiliani did not act out of willful ignorance is not evidence of a conspiracy.

[TruthSeeker1234]

The point I was making is that Gravy and others were speculating about what Giuliani might have said, and which tower he might have been talking about, when the information is readily available. Gravy is a very able researcher. I find his lack of curiosity interesting.

If someone had said to Giuliani, "Hey, we're under attack, let's get out of here", that would be different. That is not what happened. What happened was, according to Giuliani, that someone stated with certainty that "The World Trade Center was going to collapse".

I find it implausible that any engineer would have made such a statement before the south tower blew up, considering the towers were designed to withstand jet crashes and fires, and that they were withstanding them. And that the north tower had withstood a 3 hour fire in 1975, quite low in the structure, with almost 100 stories above.

Now, after the south tower blew up, all bets are off. Sure, if they blew up one, could be a strong chance they'd blow up the other one also.

[R.Mackey]

I find it implausible that any engineer would have made such a statement before the south tower blew up, considering the towers were designed to withstand jet crashes and fires, and that they were withstanding them. And that the north tower had withstood a 3 hour fire in 1975, quite low in the structure, with almost 100 stories above.
Why is it implausible? Structures don't always perform the way they're designed. The design failure performance was entirely hypothetical. Detailed modeling was impossible when they were constructed. After the aircraft actually hit, there's much more additional data, real data.

Example, I was an undergraduate at the University of California, Santa Cruz, when the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, magnitude 7.1, struck. All of our buildings were designed to withstand earthquakes in that range, and all were designed to fail gracefully -- allowing egress -- for earthquakes up to 7.5 MR.

Nonetheless, some were damaged, some heavily. Others escaped almost unscathed. Some that were felt to be underdesigned performed better than some that were considered overbuilt.

It happens. Engineering involves management of uncertainty.

Any structural engineer who actually watched the WTC towers after they got hit and burned might indeed conclude that they would fail, original specification be damned. There's nothing implausible about this at all.

Now, after the south tower blew up, all bets are off. Sure, if they blew up one, could be a strong chance they'd blow up the other one also.
"Blow up," huh. Biased, much?

[LashL]

If someone had said to Giuliani, "Hey, we're under attack, let's get out of here", that would be different. That is not what happened. What happened was, according to Giuliani, that someone stated with certainty that "The World Trade Center was going to collapse".

I find it implausible that any engineer would have made such a statement before the south tower blew up, considering the towers were designed to withstand jet crashes and fires, and that they were withstanding them. And that the north tower had withstood a 3 hour fire in 1975, quite low in the structure, with almost 100 stories above.

Now, after the south tower blew up, all bets are off. Sure, if they blew up one, could be a strong chance they'd blow up the other one also.

Neither tower "blew up". And see post #10 regarding an engineer making such a statement prior to the collapse of the south tower.


Start here:
According to the book cited above, it appears that an engineer from the Department of Buildings reported that the structural damage to the towers appeared to be immense and that the stability of both buildings was compromised.

[firecoins]

I find it implausible that any engineer would have made such a statement before the south tower blew up, considering the towers were designed to withstand jet crashes and fires, and that they were withstanding them. And that the north tower had withstood a 3 hour fire in 1975, quite low in the structure, with almost 100 stories above.
.
So wrong! THe towers were desinged to withstand the impact of a 707 that accidentally crashed into a tower. It was assumed such a plane would be landing or taking off and not going at a high rate of speed.

The planes were 747s, 20% bigger and purposely slammed into the WTC at speeds of 500 mph. The towers were not designed for that at all!

Furthermore, emergency services think in worst case scenarios. As a former EMT I was trained to think that way. It is not unreasonable to have expected partial or complete collapses in the twin toweres. Due to the location of the NYC emergency bunker, to move out leaders in to an non-affected area is basic emergency planning.

[Pyrrho]

Let's say, purely for the sake of discussion, that Silverstein meant "demolish the building" when he said "pull it". A decision to "pull it" does not necessarily mean "immediately demolish the building". He could easily have meant "write the building off as a loss and let it burn down".

In the context of the statements Silverstein made, it is not apparent or obvious that he meant "immediately demolish the building". What is obvious is that the decision to "pull it" was made out of concern for the safety and lives of the people trying to put out the fires.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html


I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

[R.Mackey]

So wrong! THe towers were desinged to withstand the impact of a 707 that accidentally crashed into a tower. It was assumed such a plane would be landing or taking off and not going at a high rate of speed.
Actually, believe it or not, the original designers did consider the case of a 707 at speed. Look at NCSTAR1-1 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf), section 5.1.4, page number 70 (bottom of page 130 in the PDF viewer). But note, however, the brevity of their calculation. Somewhere the three-page letter itself referenced in Footnote 22 is online too, but I can't find it at the moment.

Anyway, the structure could handle the impact of a 707 at speed without toppling, that's what they concluded. But in 1964, without the Towers even built, there's no way they could do a more in-depth analysis. Surely no consideration was possible for the resulting fire.

As for multiple impacts, no rigorous study was ever done. This brief back-of-envelope estimate is it.

Also, they were 767's, not 747s. 747's are quite a bit larger still and would probably have brought the towers down much quicker. (Certainly not any slower.)

[Popeholden]

Mark Loizeaux actually predicted which building would fall first, because the second building hit had more weight above the impact zone.

[Moochie]

Mark Loizeaux actually predicted which building would fall first, because the second building hit had more weight above the impact zone.


Makes perfectly good sense to me. Alas, I'm not imaginative enough to put a CT spin on it.

M.

[Brainster]

But why did WTC 7 collapse? News footage I've seen certainly looks like demolition. And Silverstein told officials to "pull it." There was no reason for that building to collapse. The fire was small and contained. :eek:

kc440

You forgot to mention that it came down faster than the speed of gravity!:p

[Brainster]

I thought JREFs and OCTs were interested in facts and evidence. All these posts and nobody even cares to find out what Giuliani actually said, to whom, when, and in what context?

Giuliani was talking to Peter Jennings on ABC about 9/11, I'm not sure exactly when, but shortly after 9/11, and he said this:

Now, considering that no skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire, it seems odd that someone knew it was "going to collapse".

It's also odd that he was operating out of 75 Barkley street, when his bunker in WTC7 was especially designed as a command center for just such emergencies.

Here's a YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRwZ1jN5iJY&search=Barkley) of the quote.

[defaultdotxbe]

Makes perfectly good sense to me. Alas, I'm not imaginative enough to put a CT spin on it.

M.
proof that his company (Controlled Demolition Inc.) planted the bombs and set the south tower to blow first

[firecoins]

I meant 767s. 767 are 20% bigger than 707s

[TruthSeeker1234]

Please quote Silverstein correctly. Consistently the word "then" is cleansed from the quote. Here'e the correct quote, the word "then" shows causal connection between what is said before, and what is said after.

Quote:
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please quote Silverstein correctly. Consistently the word "then" is cleansed from the quote. Here'e the correct quote, the word "then" shows causal connection between what is said before, and what is said after.


Silverstein's Quote:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...

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

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt

Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt

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

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt

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

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt

"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html

This proves there was a big hole on the south side of the building. From the photographic evidence and these quotes which aren't meant to be technical, I suspect there was a large hole in the center of the building which may have gone up 10 stories connected to a large rip on the left side of the building which continued up another 10 or more stories. Together they would make "a hole 20 stories tall".

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

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

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html

It mirrors what Silverstein said.

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html

source (http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm)

[cloudshipsrule]

Arkan,

So you're saying that the government had disinfo agents working inside various fire departments, and these agents started spreading rumors after WTC 1 and 2 collapsed (via communications networks used by fire departments) that WTC7 was going to collapse due to fire so that when WTC7 actually collapsed from the explosive devices put in place by controlled demolition experts, while the building was heavily involved by fire, skeptics would have some manufactured evidence to show the world that it wasn't an inside job when it really was? Holy Crap! That's just bonkers! :jaw-dropp

(Try reading this post while holding your breath. Makes a great drinking game!)

[Hellbound]

Please quote Silverstein correctly. Consistently the word "then" is cleansed from the quote. Here'e the correct quote, the word "then" shows causal connection between what is said before, and what is said after.

You really are that ignorant. Is English a second language?

"I went to work, then I went out to get a pizza."

"I washed the dog, then I watched TV and drank a beer."

"I went to the store, then I painted the house."

The word "then" does NOT imply any sort of causality, unless you live in a world where your desperate to twist anything you can to make sure you can still claim you're right. The word "then" implies nothing more than a temporal sequence...the prior event occured before the second event. In other words, the above examples could be re-written as:

"I went to work before I went out to get a pizza."
"I went out to get a pizza after I went to work."

"I washed the dog before I watched TV and drank a beer."
"I watched TV abd drank a beer after I washed the dog."

"I went to the store before I painted the house."
"I painted the house after I went to the store."

"They made the decision to pull before we watched the collapse."
"We watched the collapse after they made the decision to pull."

[rwguinn]

You really are that ignorant. Is English a second language?

"I went to work, then I went out to get a pizza."

"I washed the dog, then I watched TV and drank a beer."

"I went to the store, then I painted the house."

The word "then" does NOT imply any sort of causality, unless you live in a world where your desperate to twist anything you can to make sure you can still claim you're right. The word "then" implies nothing more than a temporal sequence...the prior event occured before the second event. In other words, the above examples could be re-written as:

"I went to work before I went out to get a pizza."
"I went out to get a pizza after I went to work."

"I washed the dog before I watched TV and drank a beer."
"I watched TV abd drank a beer after I washed the dog."

"I went to the store before I painted the house."
"I painted the house after I went to the store."

"They made the decision to pull before we watched the collapse."
"We watched the collapse after they made the decision to pull."

The last one, or the original quote, could be read as "They made the decision to pull, then (all we could do was watch) the building collapse"

[Hellbound]

The last one, or the original quote, could be read as "They made the decision to pull, then (all we could do was watch) the building collapse"

Very true.

[DavidJames]

The last one, or the original quote, could be read as "They made the decision to pull, then (all we could do was watch) the building collapse"But CTist read it as

"They made the decision to pull, then (the explosives and thermite kicked in and we watched) the building collapse"

Is there any money in CT? Does the amount include what I get to sell my soul?

Always trying to keep my career opportunities open.

[Hellbound]

But CTist read it as

"They made the decision to pull, then (the explosives and thermite kicked in and we watched) the building collapse"

Is there any money in CT? Does the amount include what I get to sell my soul? Always trying to keep my career opportunities open.

I'm outta luck, sadly. I already sold my soul back in '92 for ten bucks and a bottle of Jack.

I might be able to repo it, though, and sell it again. I bet I could talk it up to $20 this time.

[Bell]

Why do these CT nutters keep posting all the same crap in each and every single thread?

[Hellbound]

Why do these CT nutters keep posting all the same crap in each and every single thread?

Because they apparently think we'll forget about their fallacious arguments between threads.