Building 7 ???

Mahatma coat · 29-06-2011 2:21pm #1

Right, I thought I'd start this thread as a Generic and see what develops

the whole Building Seven issue has never sat right with me, the fact that it was omitted from the original NIST report, the manner of its collapse and the vauge wishy washy explanations of WTC 1&2 fell on it despite the fact that it was earmarked for collapse BEFORE Towers 1 or 2 fell.

so what are people opinions on this???

theboss80 · 29-06-2011 5:20pm

This picture for me shows that the theory of falling debris from towers 1 & 2 caused Building 7 to collapse as absolutely ridiculous. I'm of the opinion that considering what government offices this building hosted that it was a controlled explosion.

Source

theboss80 · 29-06-2011 5:26pm

Also these two particular videos stick out like a sore thumb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

29-06-2011 5:29pm

theboss80 wrote: »

This picture for me shows that the theory of falling debris from towers 1 & 2 caused Building 7 to collapse as absolutely ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous?
What caused the massive holes in building 6, 5 and 4? What happened to building 3?

Mahatma coat · 29-06-2011 5:30pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI

Barry Jennings (RIP)

Heres his interview with Avery, this paints a very different story to what the official explanation claimed at the time.

theboss80 · 29-06-2011 5:38pm

King Mob wrote: »

Why is it ridiculous?
What caused the massive holes in building 6, 5 and 4? What happened to building 3?

Mob there's a huge difference between massive holes in buildings , which by the way are directly beside the towers , and the complete collapse of the building across the road ,further away , and also for the buildings either side of 7 not to be damaged in anyway like 7 itself.

29-06-2011 5:44pm

theboss80 wrote: »

Mob there's a huge difference between massive holes in buildings , which by the way are directly beside the towers , and the complete collapse of the building across the road ,further away , and also for the buildings either side of 7 not to be damaged in anyway like 7 itself.

Yes, and there's massive differences between the smaller WTC buildings and WTC7.

So are you saying that WTC7 and the buildings next to it were totally undamaged by debris from the towers?

theboss80 · 29-06-2011 5:52pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, and there's massive differences between the smaller WTC buildings and WTC7.

So are you saying that WTC7 and the buildings next to it were totally undamaged by debris from the towers?

What point are you trying to make?

And no Mob don't be trying to put words in my mouth.I never said they were undamaged did i? I said the scale of damage seemingly caused by debris had a devastating effect on B7 in comparison to the other buildings , do you disagree?

Spacedog · 29-06-2011 5:59pm

Overall I can make this assertion:

EITHER
1) There were explosives planted in the buildings following the planes hitting them.
OR
2) The lucrative profession of all demolition explosive engineers is fraudulent as their complex job can be done simply by applying a huge side impact to a building (e.g an airplane, or even a random pile of rubble) and achieve the same result.

...At the time I recall thinking and saying that the collapse of 1 and 2 resembled a demolition.

Demolition professionals get paid a fortune to carefully place and time explosive charges so that a building will collapse in on its own footprint as the WTC towers did. While working in an engineering company the topic came up in the lunchroom and I was surprised that none of the engineers there had thought about this before. they seemed interested in the idea though.

next, within weeks of 9/11 discovery channel broadcast a documentary that was about as scientific as an episode of american chopper. It explained using pre-rendered animation, the pancake effect that caused the buildings to fall in this way. I would like to see a simulation using contemporary standard industrial software, autocad etc. of the buildings etc that can be inspected and verified independently.

I suspect that in order to fabricate a simulation of this type of collapse, one would have to change the properties of key parts of the structure and trial and error until it fit the story. this would be obvious if we could examine the simulation parameters against known plans of the buildings.

As for building 7, the same type of collapse, and the report of it falling before it did. I looked at the vid of the BBC report above and read comments saying it was not live etc. then looked into the female journalist who was resistant to talk about it as she is bombarded with calls from 'conspiracy nuts'. she asserts that it was live, and that she did not confirm or deny the report of the buildings collapse, stating that information was sketchy. this to me is fair enough. but that being the case the source of the report from the news wire needs examination, which for a reporter she didnt seem too bothered with. If i were a reporter worth my salt and such a story fell on my lap I'd be chasing down every lead.

29-06-2011 6:06pm

theboss80 wrote: »

What point are you trying to make?

I'm getting to it.

theboss80 wrote: »

And no Mob don't be trying to put words in my mouth.I never said they were undamaged did i?

So since you agree that WTC 7 was damaged by debris do you also argee that there were fires in the building on multiple floors which burned for several hours?

theboss80 wrote: »

I said the scale of damage seemingly caused by debris had a devastating effect on B7 in comparison to the other buildings , do you disagree?

Well if the damage done by the debris was the only factor then I would agree with you.
But it wasn't the only factor.

29-06-2011 6:16pm

Spacedog wrote: »

...explosive charges so that a building will collapse in on its own footprint as the WTC towers did.

But none of them collapsed into there own foot print.

Also demolition crews do all that work to prevent damage to surrounding buildings, leave the remains of building in an easily manageable condition and prevent anyone from getting killed.

Spacedog · 29-06-2011 6:34pm

King Mob wrote: »

But none of them collapsed into there own foot print.

Also demolition crews do all that work to prevent damage to surrounding buildings, leave the remains of building in an easily manageable condition and prevent anyone from getting killed.

Dont you agree that the 3 collapses look similar to a controlled demolition? in that I would have assumed that a skyscraper would topple sideways and do a hell of a lot more damage on one side than the other from a structural impact from the side. instead they seemed to collapse in the same way, from the top down in a straight line.

Dont you see my overall point and have have anything more thoughtful to convince me otherwise? I'd appreciate you elaborate a little more on your points on this thread as I would like very much to be wrong about this.

29-06-2011 6:42pm

Spacedog wrote: »

Dont you agree that the 3 collapses look similar to a controlled demolition?

Well they look superficially like a demolition is that buildings fell down. But they lack several key features of them

Spacedog wrote: »

in that I would have assumed that a skyscraper would topple sideways and do a hell of a lot more damage on one side than the other from a structural impact from the side. instead they seemed to collapse in the same way, from the top down in a straight line.

Well that assumption is based on anyone seriously suggesting that it fell due to a impact on the side. No one does.

And they didn't fall in a straight line.
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc-southtower.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f2.jpg
As we can see from the rather large tilts here.

Spacedog · 29-06-2011 7:50pm

thanks for your 3 sentences.

King Mob wrote: »

Well they look superficially like a demolition is that buildings fell down. But they lack several key features of them

can you list these features please?

Well that assumption is based on anyone seriously suggesting that it fell due to a impact on the side. No one does.

I made the assumption, so I can tell you that it was not it's basis.
It's based on both the side impact damage, and the localisation of additional explosive damage on the same side causing uneven structural damage to the opposing side which would have suffered fire damage alone.

side A = impact + explosion + fire
side B = fire

And they didn't fall in a straight line.

You are being obtuse, from your previous comment I believe you know I meant that they did not topple as would be expected from an uneven distribution of damage.

What do you think of my idea regarding a testable, repeatable simulation using industry certified software and standards to put the issue to rest?

Mahatma coat · 29-06-2011 7:51pm

See, the Crux of the issue for me is

What caused the fires in WTC7?

Spacedog · 29-06-2011 8:02pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

See, the Crux of the issue for me is

What caused the fires in WTC7?

I dont know.

29-06-2011 8:07pm

Spacedog wrote: »

thanks for your 3 sentences.

can you list these features please?

Sure.
Multiple explosions on multiple floors followed immediately by a collapse of the building.
This isn't present in any of the buildings.

Spacedog wrote: »

I made the assumption, so I can tell you that it was not it's basis.
It's based on both the side impact damage, and the localisation of additional explosive damage on the same side causing uneven structural damage to the opposing side which would have suffered fire damage alone.

side A = impact + explosion + fire
side B = fire

So what you're looking for is a slight tilt towards the damaged area after the structure fails due to fire?

Spacedog wrote: »

You are being obtuse, from your previous comment I believe you know I meant that they did not topple as would be expected from an uneven distribution of damage.

But that's not what you've said. You said that they all feel straight down into their footprint. They neither fell straight down or into their own foot print.

Spacedog wrote: »

What do you think of my idea regarding a testable, repeatable simulation using industry certified software and standards to put the issue to rest?

Would you accept one put out by, say, the NIST or other government agency?

29-06-2011 8:24pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

See, the Crux of the issue for me is

What caused the fires in WTC7?

The large airliners crashing and exploding and sending flaming wreckage everywhere?
The flaming wreckage from the buildings as they collapse onto WTC7?
Non flaming debris causing damage to something that can cause fires such as electronic devices or wiring?
A combination of the above?

Spacedog · 29-06-2011 8:44pm

frame of reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU

King Mob wrote: »

Sure.
Multiple explosions on multiple floors followed immediately by a collapse of the building.
This isn't present in any of the buildings.

in the video above, many of the detonation flashes are not viable and are fired in sequence as the collapse progresses.

So what you're looking for is a slight tilt towards the damaged area after the structure fails due to fire?

more than slight I would have thought.

But that's not what you've said. You said that they all feel straight down into their footprint. They neither fell straight down or into their own foot print.

looked that way to me, are we talking about the same 9/11 here?
look at the overhead pics above, you can see very little rubble spilled past the footprint of the building considering their standing height, try building a scale model with blocks or jenga and try to make it fall in such a neat pile.

Would you accept one put out by, say, the NIST or other government agency?[/QUOTE]

yes please. link me the simulation file. I can finally put my super computer to work other than Metro 2033

like i said, I worked IT in an engineering firm and am familiar with the tools.

Spacedog · 29-06-2011 8:56pm

King Mob wrote: »

The large airliners crashing and exploding and sending flaming wreckage everywhere?
The flaming wreckage from the buildings as they collapse onto WTC7?
Non flaming debris causing damage to something that can cause fires such as electronic devices or wiring?
A combination of the above?

In that context...

"If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise."

-to your mind, is this statement true?

29-06-2011 9:03pm

Spacedog wrote: »

frame of reference:
in the video above, many of the detonation flashes are not viable and are fired in sequence as the collapse progresses.

And one thing missing from the video thanks to it's oddly uplifting soundtrack is the very loud, very noticeable explosion sounds in sequence followed immediately by the collapse.
And unfortunately your excuse about not being able to see the flashs doesn't hold up as there are many many angles on WTC7 from which those flashes could be seen.

Spacedog wrote: »

more than slight I would have thought.

So would you call these tilts slight?
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc-southtower.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f2.jpg

Spacedog wrote: »

looked that way to me, are we talking about the same 9/11 here?
look at the overhead pics above, you can see very little rubble spilled past the footprint of the building considering their standing height, try building a scale model with blocks or jenga and try to make it fall in such a neat pile.

So what exactly punched the holes in WTC 4, 5 and 6 as per the photo in the OP?
Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FEMA_-_4019_-_Photograph_by_Michael_Rieger_taken_on_09-21-2001_in_New_York.jpg
Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FEMA_-_4224_-_Photograph_by_Bri_Rodriguez_taken_on_09-27-2001_in_New_York.jpg

Spacedog wrote: »

yes please. link me the simulation file. I can finally put my super computer to work other than Metro 2033 like i said, I worked IT in an engineering firm and am familiar with the tools.

Well this is what they used in the NIST report. Not sure if you can actually get the raw file or not.

29-06-2011 9:10pm

Spacedog wrote: »

In that context...

"If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise."

-to your mind, is this statement true?

True, with slight modifications, but dishonestly used and a common canard.

"If fire solely caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced total collapse of a steel-frame high-rise."

Firstly WTC7 didn't collapse due to fire alone, no one seriously claims that it did.
There have been buildings with steel framed sections that did collapse due to fire, though certain sections of them stayed standing.

And even if your statement were true as you had given it, it doesn't really prove much as WTC7 is a very unique design under very unusual circumstances.

Spacedog · 29-06-2011 9:34pm

With all due respect, clearly both of us are expressing opposing subjective opinions on how these buildings should or should not have fallen.

I propose we set the terms for an independent scientifically verifiable test of one of the simulations. NIST as you have mentioned ran a simulation of building 7 in what is described a scientific approach.

I propose that we contact them and request the files, aquire the software needed to run the simulation ourselves and verify that the dimensions and materials of the simulated structure match that of the blueprints of the building.

Do you agree to this approach, and would you (or anyone else) care to further clarify the testing criteria?

29-06-2011 9:41pm

Spacedog wrote: »

With all due respect, clearly both of us are expressing opposing subjective opinions on how these buildings should or should not have fallen.

Except you started off saying that the buildings fell straight down into their footprints.
Neither of those things are true.
Nothing subjective about it really.

Spacedog wrote: »

I propose we set the terms for an independent scientifically verifiable test of one of the simulations. NIST as you have mentioned ran a simulation of building 7 in what is described a scientific approach.

I propose that we contact them and request the files, aquire the software needed to run the simulation ourselves and verify that the dimensions and materials of the simulated structure match that of the blueprints of the building.

Do you agree to this approach, and would you (or anyone else) care to further clarify the testing criteria?

Why? What's wrong with the independent review of it done by the NIST and detailed in the report they published?

You can go ahead and do it if you like, but the NIST report is conclusive enough for me, and no conspiracy theorist has been able to present any argument that holds up to scrutiny.

ed2hands · 29-06-2011 11:01pm

theboss80 wrote: »

This picture for me shows that the theory of falling debris from towers 1 & 2 caused Building 7 to collapse as absolutely ridiculous. I'm of the opinion that considering what government offices this building hosted that it was a controlled explosion.

Source

Just been studying this photo. Didn't realise how far away it was from the twin towers.
If it was a controlled demolition and it was planned to be taken down with explosives on 9/11, how were the people who planted the explosives so sure that debris from buildings 1 and 2 would travel the required distance and consequently do enough structural and fire damage so that it covered up their actions in the eyes of the watching media, fire dept etc? Just doesn't make sense to me.

theboss80 · 29-06-2011 11:11pm

King Mob wrote: »

I'm getting to it.

Ok go ahead

King Mob wrote: »

So since you agree that WTC 7 was damaged by debris do you also argee that there were fires in the building on multiple floors which burned for several hours?
.

I assume some minor debris would have made contact but nothing substantial. I haven't read any report of fires on multiple floors that lasted for hours.

King Mob wrote: »

Well if the damage done by the debris was the only factor then I would agree with you.
But it wasn't the only factor.

What was?

In the picture i put up at the start there is no major visible structure that would have fallen from T1 or T2 between the buildings or even the street between them, how do you explain that?

Mahatma coat · 29-06-2011 11:23pm

King Mob wrote: »

True, with slight modifications, but dishonestly used and a common canard.

"If fire solely caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced total collapse of a steel-frame high-rise."

Firstly WTC7 didn't collapse due to fire alone, no one seriously claims that it did.
There have been buildings with steel framed sections that did collapse due to fire, though certain sections of them stayed standing.

And even if your statement were true as you had given it, it doesn't really prove much as WTC7 is a very unique design under very unusual circumstances.

So, bits of Steel/glass/Aluminium/Plastic/ or somesuch spontaneously caugh on fire as it was being ejected from the 77th floor, and then proceeded to remain on fire getting hot enough to continue burning as they puncured the superstructure of the building with enough force to Critically weaken it?????

Yeah? :rolleyes:

cos it all sounds so simple when you lay it out like that

SamHarris · 29-06-2011 11:31pm

Just pointing out that - Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) all took part in investigating if WTC 7's collapse was structural failure/ the official story being correct.

Now either these groups are all also in on the conspiracy, or a handful of unqualified peoples personal increduility at the events is just that.

I know what the reasonable money is on.

29-06-2011 11:33pm

theboss80 wrote: »

Ok go ahead

That by only looking at the pictures and information conspiracy theory sites will present you you'd have an incomplete picture.

theboss80 wrote: »

I assume some minor debris would have made contact but nothing substantial.

Here is a picture of the Banker's trust building on the opposite side of the WTC.
http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg

Here's a picture of World Finance Centre building 3, also showing the smoke pouring from WTC7:
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

Here's the Winter Garden also part of the WFC:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/FEMA_-_4224_-_Photograph_by_Bri_Rodriguez_taken_on_09-27-2001_in_New_York.jpg

And here's WTC7's heavily damaged south corner:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IGZLkbR7jWs/RhArIs4wgLI/AAAAAAAAAE8/SSjMO5HyHG8/s1600-h/swcornerdamage.jpg

So do you still think that it's "minor" and "nothing substantial"?

And have you ever seen these pictures on any conspiracy theorist websites?

theboss80 wrote: »

I haven't read any report of fires on multiple floors that lasted for hours.

It's covered in the NIST report.

theboss80 wrote: »

What was?

Out of control fires on multiple levels and a particular design flaw were factors as well as the structural damage.

Again all detailed in the NIST report.

theboss80 wrote: »

In the picture i put up at the start there is no major visible structure that would have fallen from T1 or T2 between the buildings or even the street between them, how do you explain that?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here exactly.
What is it I have to explain?

29-06-2011 11:42pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So, bits of Steel/glass/Aluminium/Plastic/ or somesuch spontaneously caugh on fire as it was being ejected from the 77th floor, and then proceeded to remain on fire getting hot enough to continue burning as they puncured the superstructure of the building with enough force to Critically weaken it?????

Yeah? :rolleyes:

cos it all sounds so simple when you lay it out like that

No, I'm saying that a fire began when the debris from Tower 1 landed on WTC7, either breaking through a window of being big enough to break through a wall.
This debris was either already on fire from the plane crash and subsequent building fire or it caused a fire on impact by say damaging some electrical equipment or combinations of both.
From there the fire raged out of control, fuelled by stuff normally found in offices such as copier paper as well as diesel fuel that powered several generators in the building.

But MC, if you'd prefer to drop this thread into the usual silly dishonest strawman arguments...

theboss80 · 30-06-2011 12:01am

King Mob wrote: »

That by only looking at the pictures and information conspiracy theory sites will present you you'd have an incomplete picture.

I''ve looked a various siteS which offer suggestions both for and against the arguments discussed here.

King Mob wrote: »

Here is a picture of the Banker's trust building on the opposite side of the WTC.
http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg

Where in relation to the arial photo would that building be? And did it collapse as per B7?

King Mob wrote: »

Here's a picture of World Finance Centre building 3, also showing the smoke pouring from WTC7:
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

Here's the Winter Garden also part of the WFC:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/FEMA_-_4224_-_Photograph_by_Bri_Rodriguez_taken_on_09-27-2001_in_New_York.jpg

Are these pictures taken from the same angle out of interest do you know?

King Mob wrote: »

And here's WTC7's heavily damaged south corner:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IGZLkbR7jWs/RhArIs4wgLI/AAAAAAAAAE8/SSjMO5HyHG8/s1600-h/swcornerdamage.jpg

It looks substantial alright.Would that in your opinion not cause the building to collapse on one corner?

King Mob wrote: »

Out of control fires on multiple levels and a particular design flaw were factors as well as the structural damage.

Again all detailed in the NIST report.

But in fairness for somebody who doesn't entirely agree with that report it'a a bit much to accept its facts. Sure doesn't that report actually site the structural failure of a single column that caused the total collapse?

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're referring to here exactly.
What is it I have to explain?

You don't have to explain anything but what I meant was , the arial photo that i linked above does not show any major structural parts of T1 or T2 that have collapsed over onto B7. Surely there would be alot of debris between the two sites yet there is practically none at all, in fact major parts of B5 and B6 are still standing , yet they are in the path between B7 and the towers.

30-06-2011 12:22am

theboss80 wrote: »

I''ve looked a various siteS which offer suggestions both for and against the arguments discussed here.

Hence why I'm asking these questions before I make the point, as it may not be (and now is likely not) needed to make.

theboss80 wrote: »

Where in relation to the arial photo would that building be? And did it collapse as per B7?

it's on the south side of the WTC complex, but out of frame in your photo.
Here's a handy lay out of the site, the Banker's trust building is labelled.
http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg

theboss80 wrote: »

Are these pictures taken from the same angle out of interest do you know?

No. The first one is from the far side of the WFC complex from the WTC looking over the Winter Garden building.
The second photo is of the side of the Winter Garden that was facing the WTC.

theboss80 wrote: »

It looks substantial alright.Would that in your opinion not cause the building to collapse on one corner?

Apparently not as the building stood for several hours after it happened. Many fire fighters were concerned about it.
It was only after the fire had been burning long enough to weaken the internal structure further did this missing corner (and other damage) contribute to the collapse.

theboss80 wrote: »

But in fairness for somebody who doesn't entirely agree with that report it'a a bit much to accept its facts.

Well you don't have to take it's word for it, just look at the pictures not shown on conspiracy sites that show extensive fires:
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7_nypd2001.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7-fire.jpg
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Magnum11.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=player_detailpage#t=112s

theboss80 wrote: »

Sure doesn't that report actually site the structural failure of a single column that caused the total collapse?

Yes, and that was the specific weakness I was referring too.
The column failed due to damage from falling debris to it and other supports as well as fire weakening further supports.

theboss80 wrote: »

You don't have to explain anything but what I meant was , the arial photo that i linked above does not show any major structural parts of T1 or T2 that have collapsed over onto B7. Surely there would be alot of debris between the two sites yet there is practically none at all, in fact major parts of B5 and B6 are still standing , yet they are in the path between B7 and the towers.

Well first of all it seems that that photo was taken some time after the collapse and it looks like some of the roads have been cleared to allow some access. Notice the path and tractor like thing on the left side of where WTC1 is marked as well as several cranes dotted around the site.

Now I've already posted photos of other building having gaping holes in them at comparable distances to the towers. Especially this one again which shows large chunks of the tower's façade laid out in front of it as well as a bit of it dangling out of it's gaping hole: http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg
This shows that substantial debris from the towers could have easily made it to WTC7. (That is if the missing corner wasn't enough to convince you.)

Also I wouldn't call what was left of B6 "a major part left standing".

guitarzero · 30-06-2011 12:46am

If building 7 fell due to fire then why was'nt there no new implications for other buildings around the world? Wouldnt there have been drastic proceedures, precautionaries, systems etc in place, even restructural changes put into buildings all over the world as a result of said reasons?
I mean imagine standing on Dame St and seeing a fire on one or two of the floors of Central Bank and then the whole thing imploding on it own footprint?? Who on earth would buy such nonsense? Even if debrise fell on it, who would just take at face value that it lead to a complete collapse into rubble?
Especially if it fell like a controlled demolition. Its enough to lose friends over to consider that this was due to fire and deprise. God almighty, this isnt to mention the other contentious bull around this.

enno99 · 30-06-2011 12:55am

King Mob wrote: »

No, I'm saying that a fire began when the debris from Tower 1 landed on WTC7, either breaking through a window of being big enough to break through a wall.
This debris was either already on fire from the plane crash and subsequent building fire or it caused a fire on impact by say damaging some electrical equipment or combinations of both.
From there the fire raged out of control, fuelled by stuff normally found in offices such as copier paper as well as diesel fuel that powered several generators in the building.

But MC, if you'd prefer to drop this thread into the usual silly dishonest strawman arguments...

"Within the building were emergency electric power generators, whose fuel supply tanks lay in and under the building. However, fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7".

According to the NIST report

30-06-2011 12:56am

guitarzero wrote: »

If building 7 fell due to fire then....

It didn't fall to fire alone. No one seriously claims this.

It didn't collapse totally into rubble or onto it's own footprint as seen in the picture in the second post.

And after their report on WTC7 (as well as the twin towers) NIST made several recommendations to alter building codes based on their findings.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/StructuralFireResistance.htm

30-06-2011 1:13am

enno99 wrote: »

"Within the building were emergency electric power generators, whose fuel supply tanks lay in and under the building. However, fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7".

According to the NIST report

Actually there was tanks higher up in the building and the NIST report says it's possible that fuel from the tank on the 7th floor may have contributed to the ignition and spread of some of the fires on the 7th and 9th floor.
"NIST concluded that the only fires that could have led to structural weakeningof WTC7 were those on the 7th though 9th and 11th through 13th floors "

Early theories of the collapse assumed that the fuel played a bigger role, but this was later corrected in the final report.
My point still stands, but good to know some one actually read the thing.

Mahatma coat · 30-06-2011 9:55am

Now here lad, that photo of the bankers Trust building is a bit of a Spurious response to my question, I dont question whether the colapsing towers caused damage, however WTC7 was on fire Long Before the main towers Fell. have you got photos of the damage caused to the buildings at that stage??????

explain it to us like we're 5, how much debris came from the impact? how did this small amount of Debris cause the Widespread fires

30-06-2011 11:32am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Now here lad, that photo of the bankers Trust building is a bit of a Spurious response to my question, I dont question whether the colapsing towers caused damage, however WTC7 was on fire Long Before the main towers Fell. have you got photos of the damage caused to the buildings at that stage??????

explain it to us like we're 5, how much debris came from the impact? how did this small amount of Debris cause the Widespread fires

Why do you think that WTC7 was on fire before the towers fell? Have you got anything to actually support this?

The photos of the Bankers Trust building and others show beyond a shadow of a doubt that debris from the tower's collapse could make it some distance and cause significant damage.

Mahatma coat · 30-06-2011 6:01pm

the Jennings interview, the news reports at the time, the fact that the then mayor Rudi Giuliani commented at the time that the Emergency response centre was in WTC7 but that they couldnt use it because the building was on fire.............

30-06-2011 6:04pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the Jennings interview, the news reports at the time, the fact that the then mayor Rudi Giuliani commented at the time that the Emergency response centre was in WTC7 but that they couldnt use it because the building was on fire.............

And any chance you could actually provide the sources for any of these?

Mahatma coat · 30-06-2011 6:25pm

well I already provided the Jennings interview, but then you didnt bother to watch it, so hey, FGI

6vCg8Fp8aw8

30-06-2011 6:35pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

well I already provided the Jennings interview, but then you didnt bother to watch it, so hey, FGI
6vCg8Fp8aw8

Well watched it. It makes no mention of fires in WTC7 prior to the collapse of the towers.

Can you post the actual statement he made that you think supports your claim?

Mahatma coat · 30-06-2011 6:46pm

Ok he said damaged in that on, I'll back down on the Giulianni one for now til I find the clip I'm lookin for:o

Jennings said there were fires and there are other reports of explosions in 7

30-06-2011 6:51pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Ok he said damaged in that on, I'll back down on the Giulianni one for now til I find the clip I'm lookin for:o

Jennings said there were fires and there are other reports of explosions in 7

Did he really?
Unless you can provide the exact quote, how is anyone to know that you're simply misquoting him like you did with Giulianni?

And which reports of explosions came before the towers fell?

Di0genes · 01-07-2011 3:10pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Ok he said damaged in that on, I'll back down on the Giulianni one for now til I find the clip I'm lookin for:o

Jennings said there were fires and there are other reports of explosions in 7

Or that he's mis remembering it. He declined to cooperated with Avery after the first interview, and Do over has a habit of misquoting and misconstruing his interviewees, take for example his misquoting of Marcel Bernard and Wallace Miller.

In short if your entire evidence of fires or explosions before the buildings is a interview given to a film maker who is a habitual liar and con artist I'm a little sceptical.

Mahatma coat · 01-07-2011 6:02pm

OK So, if the building didnt catch fire til after the second tower colapsed then why did ther steel melt faster than the other two towers

01-07-2011 6:04pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK So, if the building didnt catch fire til after the second tower colapsed then why did ther steel melt faster than the other two towers

MC, no one claims that steel was melted.

Another strawman that you know isn't true.

Di0genes · 01-07-2011 6:06pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK So, if the building didnt catch fire til after the second tower colapsed then why did ther steel melt faster than the other two towers

Two strawmen in one.

No one believes the steel "melted" in the WTC or WTC7.

Who says the this about either the towers or the WTC7?

Are you incoherently trying to suggest that the collapse of WTC 7 happened faster than the collapse of either of the Towers?

Mahatma coat · 01-07-2011 6:07pm

read Weaken for Melt and then reply

01-07-2011 6:10pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

read Weaken for Melt and then reply

Who said that the steel weakened in the WTC7 faster than in the twin towers?

Why did you say melt in the first place when you knew that it was a strawman?

Di0genes · 01-07-2011 6:23pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

read Weaken for Melt and then reply

Okay so you admit the Steel didn't melt then?

Mahatma. WTC 7 had two skyscrapers fall on it. Massive structural damage occured. On the back of this massive structural damage, it was fully engaged in fire for several hours, and the FDNY made no attempt to fight these fires.

It wasn't the only building in the surrounding area to sustain massive damage 3 WTC, 4 WTC, 5 WTC, and 6 WTC all sustained massive damage and needed to be torn down.

And we know the building was fully involved in fire because of things like

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 Larocco

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

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

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.

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

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

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 http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf 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. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf 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 what-not. 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

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.

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 http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf 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
(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

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, "**** '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

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

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." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183/index.html

21. They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations.
–Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon

22. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury

23. We assisted some FDNY personnel who were beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC. We assisted in dragging hose they needed to bring water into the building. –Kenneth Kohlmann PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 26

24. My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profiles/profiles_vitchers_t.html
25. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)
26. At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)
27. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring. All we could think is we were an Engine Company, we have got to get them some water. We need some water you know. With that, we positioned the rig, I don't know, 3 quarters of a block away maybe. A fire boat was going to relay water to us. I don't know if I have things in the right order, whatever, if we were getting water out of a hydrant first. Jesus Christ --
Q. Captain said you were getting water. You were draining a vacuum?
A. It was draining away from us. Right. We had to be augmented. I think that's when the fire boat came. I think the fire boats supplied us. Of course you don't see that. You just see the (inaudible) way and you know, we are hooking up and we wound up supplying the Tower Ladder there. I just remember feeling like helpless, like everybody there was doomed and there is -- I just felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do. I want to just go back a little bit.–Firefighter Kevin Howe
28. "When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site. –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6. (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002. P. 103)

29. Firefighter TJ Mundy: "The other building, #7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse." (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002.)
30. 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable. –Firefighter Steve Modica http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/modica.html
31. So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.
–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim http://www.911report.com/media/davidlim.pdf

32. We could hear fires crackling. We didn’t know it at the time, but No. 7 World Trade Center and No. 5 World Trade Center were immediately adjacent to us and they were roaring, they were on fire. Those were the sounds that we were hearing. ...At the same time, No. 5 World Trade Center, No. 6 World Trade Center and No. 7 World Trade Center were roaring. They were on fire. And they were right next to us. So we have all that smoke that we’re dealing with.
–FDNY Capt. Jay Jonas http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htm

From Oral histories of 9/11 First Responders
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

And We know the building suffered massive structural damage after the collapse of the towers

1. 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. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

2. At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. – FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF

3. [Shortly after the tower collapses] I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any fire at that time. Deputy ––Chief Nick Visconti http://tinyurl.com/paqux

4. A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110045.PDF

5. I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in. –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

6. 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 hose line 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 Brandeis 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 Magazine: 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 through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably 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. – Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp

7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

8. Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway, in a letter to me.

9. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

10. Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7.

We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.

Q. Were you injured?

A. Yes, I saw some stuff had fallen on me. I didn't believe that I was injured at that time. I discovered later on I was injured. I had some shards of glass impaled in my head, but once I was able to get all this debris and rubble off of me and cover my face with my jacket so that I could breathe, it was very thick dust, you couldn't see. We heard some sounds. We reached out and felt our way around. I managed to find some other people in this lower lobby. We crawled over towards the direction where we thought the door was and as we approached it the door cracked open a little, so we had the lights from the loading bay. We made our way over there. The loading bay doors were 3-fourths of the way shut when this happened, so they took a lot of dust in there, but everyone in those bays was safe and secure. We had face to face contact with Chief Maggio and Captain Nahmod. They told me – I said do whatever you need to do, get these people out of here. Go, go towards the water. –EMS Division Chief Jon Peruggia
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110160.PDF

11. You could see the damage at 7 World Trade Center, the damage into the AT&T building.
–FDNY Firefighter Vincent Palmieri http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110258.PDF

12. At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

13. The way we got into the loading dock [of WTC 7] was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.

Q. The door was blocked?

A. Yeah, and we found our way -- we walked across the loading dock area, and we found there was another door. We went in that door, and from there we were directed to -- I really guess it was like a basement area of the building, but we were directed to an opposite door. –Dr. Michael Guttenberg , NYC Office of Medical Affairs http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110005.PDF

14. We eventually ended up meeting after the second explosion, three of us met up here, but I didn't see a lot of the people that were with me until two, three days later. I got word that they were okay. For instance, Dr. Guttenberg and Dr. Asaeda, who were at 7 World Trade Center, they got trapped in there and had to like climb in and out and get out because that building also became very damaged supposedly and they were there. We thought they were dead. I guess he was in an area where Commissioner Tierney might have been, I believe. I think she was in 7 also. –Paramedic Manuel Delgado http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110004.PDF

(After collapse of south tower)
15. The decision was either to go left or right and we ended up going right, between the two buildings, in the alleyway on the north, which turned out to be the right direction because apparently there was a lot of debris and part of 7 down already. Also, I did notice as I was making my exit the sound of the firefighters' alarms indicating that they were down. I did remember that as well but just could not see anything. –Dr. Glenn Asaeda http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110062.PDF

16. I saw the firefighter. There were people screaming out of one of these two buildings over here saying they couldn't get out, and my partner took one straggler fireman, the one that we had with us, and was trying to break the door because the door obviously had shifted or something. They couldn't get the door open.

Q: That was 7 World Trade Center?

A: I believe it was 7. Maybe it was 5. It was at the back end of it because I do remember the telephone company [which is next to building 7]. So I think it was the back end of 7, I think right over here at that point, and they couldn't get out. Then I had ran down the block and I flagged a ladder company and they brought the ladder, which they had like a vestibule that you couldn't like really reach the people because the ladder wouldn't reach. So they went and got other resources, they went inside the building, and I told my partner that it wasn't safe and that we need to go because everything around us was like falling apart. –EMT Nicole Ferrell http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110304.PDF

17. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower. – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

18. At that point, they said that Seven World Trade had no face and it was ready to collapse. – EMT Mercedes Rivera: (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 29)

19. You see the white smoke, you see the thing leaning like this? It's definitely going. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out, and it's already, the structural integrity is not there. –Unidentified firefighter in this video.

20. As far as I was concerned, we were still trapped. I was hopeful. things were looking a whole lot better now than they were just a few minutes earlier, but we were a long way from safe and sound. Five World Trade Center was fully involved, Six World Trade Center was roaring pretty good, and behind them Seven World Trade Center was teetering on collapse.
The buildings just behind him and to his left were looking like they too might collapse at any time, and there were whole chunks of concrete falling to both sides. Flames dancing everywhere. The small-arms detonations were kicking up a notch or two, and it sounded like this poor guy was being fired at, by snipers or unseen terrorists, at close range. (Last Man Down by Richard Picciotto, FDNY Battalion Commander Penguin Books, 2002. page 191)

So one has to ask, why are you going through this tired dance again Mahatma, when we've done all this to death

Building 7 ???

Comments