Waiting For Seven: WTC-7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories

[mhatrw]

Please read this whole article, including the appendixes, for the clearest understanding of the mysterious warnings of WTC-7 imminent collapse that were circulating among the FDNY and other NYC responders for many hours before the WTC-7's collapse occurred as predicted.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf

The majority of FDNY members did not rationally conclude, on
the basis of direct perception of damage to the building, that it was in danger of collapse;
they accepted that it would collapse on the basis of what they were told. ...

(1) In the FDNY oral histories, there are about 60 FDNY members who report hearing
warnings of Seven’s collapse.
(2) Of these 60 cases, only two have an unknown degree of certainty. Thirty-one cases
qualify as “definite” (Seven is thought definitely to be coming down), while 27 qualify as
“indefinite” (Seven might come down).
(3) In 27 cases time could not be determined. Of the remaining cases, 17 warnings were
received less than two hours before collapse, while ten were received two or more hours
before collapse and six appear to have been received four or more hours before collapse.
(4) In five cases it is unknown who ascertained that the building was headed for possible
or certain collapse. Of the remaining cases, seven FDNY members personally ascertained
or affirmed the possible or definite collapse, while in 50 cases this judgment was made by
others, typically official superiors. (There are two cases where the judgment was made on
the basis of both self and other—hence the failure of these numbers to add up to the
correct total.) ...

As will be clear by now, my research refutes the claim that the FDNY witnesses
as a body perceived with their own eyes that Seven was severely damaged and on that
basis concluded that it was at risk of total collapse. My research shows that the great
majority of witnesses accepted that Seven was going to collapse because they were told
that it was going to collapse.

But if this is the case, how did the notion of total collapse arise in the first place?
The FDNY oral testimonies do not give a satisfactory answer to this question.
A variety of high ranking individuals in the FDNY suggest in their testimonies
that they concluded on the basis of their own observation that the building was going to
collapse. As will be seen in Appendix C, which lists the seven cases of independent
observation and assessment, Chiefs Fellini, Goldbach and Nigro felt the collapse
warnings were supported by their own observations. And, outside the context of the
formal oral histories conducted by the World Trade Center Task Force, there are
testimonies in Firehouse Magazine with Captain Boyle and Deputy Chief Hayden where
these officers give signs of structural damage (the large hole supposedly created by debris
from WTC 1, as well as creaking, leaning and bulging in WTC 7) that they say led them
to worry about the stability of the building and, in Hayden’s case, to conclude at about
2:00 p.m. that the building “was going to collapse.” ...

When Zarrillo carried Peruggia’s startling news of imminent collapse to Chief
Ganci, Ganci’s response was, “who the fuck told you that?” <14> Ganci had bet the lives
of his firefighters on the stability of the Towers. In fact, the lives of hundreds of
firefighters had been wagered on the experience of fire chiefs who never suspected
collapse. Ganci had almost certainly been told, like Peruggia and others in the FDNY (see
Appendix E), that planes could not cause the Towers to collapse. Ganci is dead—he died
in the collapse of the North Tower—but his question remains a good one: Who told you
that? ... But if, as many in the 9-11 truth movement believe, the damage sustained by
Seven in no way justified the collapse that eventually took place, how could so many of
the firefighters have accepted without question the warnings of such collapse? But if,
as many in the 9-11 truth movement believe, the damage sustained by Seven in no way
justified the collapse that eventually took place, how could so many of the firefighters
have accepted without question the warnings of such collapse? I cannot answer this question
with certainty but I can make suggestions. First, we should remember that Hayden is not the
only one whose expectations were overturned by the earlier events of the day. With the
collapse of the Towers, normality had been fractured. (“I’m doing this 23 years...
This changed all the rules. This changed all the rules. This went from a structure to a wafer
in seconds, in seconds.” <15>) ...

When Firefighter Michael Morabito attempted to talk about the collapse of Seven
in his interview he was interrupted by his interviewer with the words, "They don't really
want to know about 7." <22> ... When Lieutenant Michael Hadden asked his interviewer,
"Do you want me to tell you what I did the whole day?" he received the reply, "No, no, that's
fine. What we're interested in is the time around the collapse."

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Is there a reason MacQueen mixes collapse accounts of the towers and 7 in the appendices?

I thought the paper was about 7.

ETA: Also, this guy said best what I was struggling with.

The collapse of WTC1 & 2 can be excluded as a reasonable precedent for the collapse of WTC7, because the collapse of WTC1 & 2 was itself suspicious. Therefore, suspicion concerning the collapse of WTC7, which is presented as the "smoking gun" which casts suspicion on the collapses of WTC1 & 2, is itself conditional on that latter suspicion already having been established, despite the fact that even a covert controlled demolition of WTC1 & 2 would establish a strong presumption in the minds of the FDNY that collapse of WTC7 was a possibility. The entire paper is therefore founded on a line of argument that is both circular, and a non-sequitur.

What a GREAT paper. Got any more?

[mhatrw]

2. If you actually READ all the oral histories like I have, you might get a clue

about what actually happened that day.

Here's what the oral histories say happened: A few fire chiefs somehow decided WTC-7's collapse was imminent many hours before it fell for completely inadequately explained reasons, then ordered all (regular) responders to stay clear of the entire WTC complex for several hours until WTC-7 fell. The questions that remain are:

"How did they correctly predict that WTC-7 was going to fall hours before it fell when FEMA's experts couldn't remotely explain why WTC-7 fell months later, concluding that even the best explanation they could devise for its collapse was improbable?" and

"Who was allowed at the WTC site during the time the regular NYC responders were restricted from it and what were they doing?"

[Bolo Boffin]

3. I can't believe you don't understand this.

How did they correctly predict that WTC-7 was going to fall hours before it fell when FEMA's experts couldn't remotely explain why WTC-7 fell months later, concluding that even the best explanation they could devise for its collapse was improbable?

You must stop pretending that the firefighters had to have a complete and full understanding of exactly why the building was going to fall. They looked at several key factors (the transit information, the fires they couldn't fight that were growing, the damage to the leaning structure) and said, no way. We're out of there. Does a kid in Little League have to perform intricate calculations in calculus before she runs over and catches the ball? GET REAL.

Since you have read ALL the oral histories, YOU KNOW that the firefighters were prepared to see other buildings collapse as well. They weren't taking any further chances after the towers. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Who was allowed at the WTC site during the time the regular NYC responders were restricted from it and what were they doing?

Again I ask, what evidence do you have that this happened at all?

[mhatrw]

4. Exactly one firefighter mentions a transit to a magazine six months after the fact.

That's it for any "evidence" of WTC-7 leaning or bulging.

Just seven firefighters mention making any personal observations in their oral histories that led them to believe that WTC-7 was likely to collapse.

The first of these seven witnesses says the WTC-7 fires were burning so hot because the jet fuel somehow landed there.

The second of these seven witnesses says the steel ripped out from the third to sixth floor led "them" to be concerned that WTC-7 would collapse.

The "evidence" for imminent collapse of the third of these seven witnesses was that "they said it suffered some form of structural damage."

The "evidence" for imminent collapse of the fourth of these seven witnesses was that "There was concern" and "There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area."

The "evidence" for imminent collapse of the fifth of these seven witnesses was that "Seven World Trade Center was
going heavy" and "Everybody was expecting that to come down" and "that they were more concerned about seven coming down."

The "evidence" for imminent collapse of the sixth of these seven witnesses was that "It had very heavy fire on many floors."

The "evidence" for imminent collapse of the seventh of these seven witnesses was that "you’re walking by this building and you’re hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames."

That's it. That's the sum total of "evidence" in 60 oral histories that mention being warned about WTC-7's imminent collapse. Damage to floors 3-6, heavy fire, creaking, and a lot of concern from "them" and a few of "them" saying that WTC-7 was structurally damaged.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. "That's it for any "evidence" of WTC-7 leaning or bulging." Another lie.

Which you yourself present the evidence for. Other people saw the building leaning. Why must you lie about this situation.

Re: the transit. Is there a reason we need more than one account about it? Is there a reason that FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden is so untrustworthy that we can't take him at his word on this?

As MacQueen points out, the oral histories focused in on the day from beginning until collapse of the second tower and its direct aftermath. If they'd gone into the whole day, no doubt there would be more talk about WTC 7's condition.

Is there any point at which you feel compelled to state you are wrong about something? You know, here and there?

[mhatrw]

13. Who mentioned the fact that WTC-7 was leaning in their

first responder oral histories? Why doesn't the FEMA report on WTC-7 mention that the building was observed leaning?

Re: the transit. Is there a reason we need more than one account about it? Is there a reason that FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden is so untrustworthy that we can't take him at his word on this?

Look, this is the only SHRED of half-way scientific evidence that WTC-7 was either bulging or leaning before it collapsed. SOMEBODY supposedly put a transit on WTC-7. SOMEBODY supposedly took measurements using this transit. Is it too much to ask who this somebody was, what his or her expertise was, when he or she took these measurements and what these measurements showed?

I mean, isn't that the very FIRST THING that any ACTUAL investigation into WTC-7's collapse would try to determine? But, of course, you want to substitute one person's offhand remark to a magazine six months after the fact that "they" put a transit on it for actual scientific inquiry. Why?

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Why are you automatically discounting every account but the oral histories?

Aren't you interested in the whole truth, or just the part that confirms what you want to believe?

The oral histories, by MacQueen's own admission, didn't go into WTC 7. It's amazing to me that you pretend people not talking about WTC 7 is proof that there was nothing wrong with the building. They weren't asked about it!

Why does FEMA say that there's a lot more study that needs to be done on WTC 7? Hmm?

The accounts are clear. The evidence is there. Your standard of evidence admission is only adopted to exclude this evidence, and could not be used in any other place to determine truth.

Hayden talked about the transit. You continue to slander his word and his trustworthiness. Here's a thought: GO ASK HIM.

[mhatrw]

32. There is EXACTLY one account, given in a magazine interview 6 months after the fact.

And it's nothing more than an offhand, informal, unofficial mention of something that may or may not have ever happened. That's not scientific evidence. It's not even legal evidence. It hardly qualifies as hearsay.

Aren't you interested in the whole truth, or just the part that confirms what you want to believe?

This is precisely what I am asking you. You seem to think that one description six months after the fact that says "we put a transit on WTC-7" confirms that transit measurements were actually made on WTC-7 by a qualified individual. Fine. I am happy to stipulate that. All I want to know is who this individual was, when this individual made these transit measurements, what time these measurements were made and what these measurements showed. Why don't you want to know these critical facts as well? Furthermore, why wasn't FEMA apprised of these critical facts? Why wasn't NIST informed of these critical facts? Please explain. Why would you rather remain ignorant of these facts than become informed by them?

[Bolo Boffin]

38. There are plenty more than that about damage to the building, mhatrw.

Why do you persist in making factually inaccurate statements?

[mhatrw]

42. List every report of a transit being put on WTC-7 that showed it bulging/leaning.

There is exactly one. This report of a transit being put on WTC-7 -- the only report of any actual scientific measurements taken on 9/11 in support of the otherwise utterly bizarre and bizarrely clairvoyant prediction that WTC-7's collapse was imminent -- was casually and obliquely claimed by a single individual in a magazine interview given six months after 9/11 and never confirmed in any official statement, mentioned in any oral history or so much as broached in any WTC-7 investigation.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. More footstomping. n/t

[mhatrw]

52. More misdirection and avoidance. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

56. I stand corrected. You were displaying more misdirection and avoidance.

My bad.

[nebula]

8. Yes, of course

You must stop pretending that the firefighters had to have a complete and full understanding of exactly why the building was going to fall.

Exactly.

Which is why the firefighters were merely parroting what they were told by Silverstein's people and/or Giuliani's people, that (building 7) was coming down. Not because of anything based on their own knowledge of building collapses (firefighters are certainly no experts in the field). They were simply echoing what they were told by their civilian superiors.

[CGowen]

9. or they said things like this

(3) Moribito, John, 9110354, p. 11
"I felt the building shake. I saw the lights flicker. At that point, I started to get nervous
and wonder whether or not the buildings would come down.
I approached the chiefs. The chiefs were assured by the engineers of the building that
there was no way that the buildings would come down. They actually said that the
buildings could take--withstand ten airplanes hitting it, and there was no way that the
buildings could come down."

[Bolo Boffin]

11. That is about the towers. Please focus. n/t

[CGowen]

12. it's from the pdf above and it's about FDNY n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

18. I know it's from the report above. The idiot who wrote it got the towers and 7 mixed up. n/t

[CGowen]

20. It's under Appendix E

APPENDIX E
WITNESSES WHO WERE TOLD PLANES COULD NOT BRING DOWN THE
TOWERS
(EXAMPLES, EXCLUDING PERUGGIA)

[Bolo Boffin]

21. What. Does that. Have to do. With Building 7. The subject. Of the paper. ?.

[CGowen]

22. He uses it in his paper, you can read it if you like

When Zarrillo carried Peruggia’s startling news of imminent collapse to Chief
Ganci, Ganci’s response was, “who the fuck told you that?” <14> Ganci had bet the lives
of his firefighters on the stability of the Towers. In fact, the lives of hundreds of
firefighters had been wagered on the experience of fire chiefs who never suspected
collapse. Ganci had almost certainly been told, like Peruggia and others in the FDNY (see
Appendix E), that planes could not cause the Towers to collapse. Ganci is dead—he died
in the collapse of the North Tower—but his question remains a good one: Who told you
that?

I think he is interested in where the information came from, how it was perceived and who determined if a building is going to collapse or remain standing.
I haven't read everything, just skipped over some pages.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. I have read the paper and noted the confusion therein.

I hoped that pointing out the confusion would cause you to consider the source.

My hopes dashed, yet again!

[mhatrw]

46. The author argues that the collapse for WTC-1 & WTC-2 caused

first responders to suspend disbelief when they were informed by their superiors that the collapse of WTC-7 was imminent. And, of course, this point is inarguable. His appendix is merely evidence of how first responders felt about fire bringing down steel framed buildings into neat piles before what happened to WTC-1 & WTC-2 inured them to the outlandishness of such an occurrence.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. You call Ground Zero a neat pile?

Because I got a bridge in Brooklyn...

[mhatrw]

53. No buildings that tall have ever been brought down in less than 20 seconds any neater

in the entire history of the world.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Good night.

I have waded through enough of your bullshit to last me all week.

[hack89]

58. And your sample size is how large? nt

[nebula]

17. Nice quote.

thanks.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. It's about the towers, before either of them fell. NOT about building 7. n/t

[nebula]

29. In that case,

the quote applies even more to Building 7 then it does to the towers, since 7 received by far the LEAST damage (no plane damage).

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Are you ever going to deal with the circular argument made by MacQueen?

The collapse of WTC1 & 2 can be excluded as a reasonable precedent for the collapse of WTC7, because the collapse of WTC1 & 2 was itself suspicious. Therefore, suspicion concerning the collapse of WTC7, which is presented as the "smoking gun" which casts suspicion on the collapses of WTC1 & 2, is itself conditional on that latter suspicion already having been established, despite the fact that even a covert controlled demolition of WTC1 & 2 would establish a strong presumption in the minds of the FDNY that collapse of WTC7 was a possibility. The entire paper is therefore founded on a line of argument that is both circular, and a non-sequitur.

[mhatrw]

34. Bullshit. All the paper is saying is that the fact that WTC-1 & WTC-2

collapsed before the firefighters' eyes caused the firefighters to suspend disbelief when they were informed that WTC-7's collapse was imminent. There is nothing whatsoever circular about this argument because this argument makes perfect sense with or without any suspicion concerning the twin towers' collapse.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Shall I quote from Mr. MacQueen?

The chiefs may have concluded that Seven was going to collapse on the basis of their pre-9-11 experience; or they may have concluded that Seven was going to collapse on the basis of what they experienced on 9-11 itself with the collapse of the Towers. These are not at all the same. If the collapses of the Towers are themselves suspect events, as they are for many of us, then we are not happy when someone treats these collapses as natural and makes conclusions accordingly.

And the ar-gu-ment goes round and round...

Why, oh, why must you persist in making factually inaccurate statements, mhatrw?

[mhatrw]

43. That isn't circular reasoning, grasshopper.

Since the collapse of the towers obviously made the firefighters forget the entire history of fireproofed steel framed high-rises when it came to credulously believing their superiors about WTC-7, MacQueen is simply observing that any suspicion about these events compounds suspicion about WTC-7. Which it obviously does.

He never claims that it is necessary to be suspicious about the collapse of the towers to be suspicious about the collapse of WTC-7. You and your other Randi worshiping buddy simply put those words in his mouth.

[Bolo Boffin]

47. I thought you had read every report about the aftermath of the towers.

Because if you had, you wouldn't have said "credulously believing".

And my name is boloboffin, mhatrw. When I give you permission to use a nickname with me, you will goddamn fucking well know it.

[mhatrw]

55. Point me to the official report that discusses the transit and the WTC-7 bulge and

leaning that it measured. Because I sure haven't seen that one.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Your standard of evidence is conveniently exacting

except when it comes to phantom black operatives.

[mhatrw]

72. Come on. What is "exacting" about expecting one single mention of

the only hard scientific evidence that WTC-7 was bulging or leaning before it fell in any official statement or investigation?

What you need to explain is why, if these critical measurements were in fact made, both FEMA and NIST have chosen to ignore them. We're still waiting for this explanation.

[Bolo Boffin]

76. It was the black operatives. They stole the readings.

Seriously. They weren't written down. That's my outlandish hypothesis. They put the transit on the building. They came back an hour later, and they had to move it. That was all they needed to know.

Since it wasn't written down, FEMA and NIST didn't or haven't used it yet. (Remember! The final report on WTC 7 has yet to be released!)

No, I got it. The transit stole the gold, and didn't share with NIST or FEMA. Is that more in accordance with your basic worldview?

[SDuderstadt]

77. I find it amazing the CT's demand...

a standard of proof they refuse to apply to their own goofy claims. Isn't it funny how they demand exacting proof for things that actually happened (for example, fireman Miller describing WTC 7 leaning and being unsafe), yet they will advance the most bizarre theories (honestly, there were NO planes?) upon mere supposition and speculation and act like we're traitors if we ask for proof.

[mhatrw]

78. If logic fails, you can always resort to ridicule! n/t

[SDuderstadt]

79. You mean like you guys?

Because you sure haven't succeeded with Logic. All I'm asking is that you apply the same rules of evidence to your own claims that you demand of the "official story"

[Bolo Boffin]

82. Nice sidestep. How did you like my actual hypothesis? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Are you ever going to deal with the accounts of the towers and 7 that MacQueen mixes up? n/t

[mhatrw]

33. He already dealt with it just fine.

I'm sorry if your reading comprehension isn't up to the task of understanding his points.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. No, he did not.

Feel free to quote from Mr. MacQueen and prove me wrong.

[HamdenRice]

5. Marc Jacobson, New York Magazine reporter and eyewitness witness

Marc Jacobson reported a similar experience in the notable New York Magazine summary. A firefighter said the building was "coming down" without explanation:

http://nymag.com/news/features/16464/

The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll

By Mark Jacobson Published Mar 20, 2006

... This isn’t as much of a stretch as it sounds, since I was there on September 11.

I’d just walked right into what would come to be called ground zero. No one stopped me. I knew the towers had fallen, seen it on TV. Still, I didn’t expect things that big to totally disappear, as if the ground had swallowed them up.

“Where are the towers?” I asked a fireman. “Under your foot” was the reply.

Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. Covered with dust, he was drinking a bottle of Poland Spring water. Half his squad was missing. They’d gone into the South Tower and never come out. Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away.

“That building is coming down,” he said with a drained casualness.

“Really?” I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. “When?”

“Tonight . . . Maybe tomorrow morning.”

This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled.

“Shit!” I screamed, unsure which way to run, because who knows which way these things fall. As it turned out, I wasn’t in any danger, since 7 WTC appeared to drop straight down. I still have dreams about the moment. Even then, the event is oddly undramatic, just a building falling.

<NB this is more than 5 paragraphs, but that's because it is mostly dialogue>

[hack89]

6. OK - so the FDNY was in on the plot

what happens next?

[HamdenRice]

7. You know that's not at all the point the OP is making

So why try to hijack the thread?

[hack89]

24. That's where the conversation always ends up

why not cut to the chase.

Of course I could be wrong, considering that the truth movement has yet to create a theory on exactly how the demolition of WTC7 was carried out. But with just a bunch of disjointed "facts" with no unifying narrative, surely you can understand how it might be easy to misrepresent the WTC7 CT?

[mrgerbik]

30. you're wrong

you expect a full inquiry and 100% bona fide case, with every tiny detail laid out with extreme precision. This a ludicrous request to ask a grassroots movement with limited or no access to all of the information. It's not officially OUR job.

Why can't we expect this certain level of undeniable proof and consistancy of the 9/11 commission, NIST and FEMA? The only reason I think many people muck around here day in and day out is the very fact that the whole investigative process witnessed around 9/11 was an obvious sham. It ended up leaving people with more questions then answers. Hence the filling of the vacuum.

[hack89]

57. That's not what I expect at all

Why can't the truth movement simply say:

"Here is how the demolition of the WTC and WTC7 could have been carried out. We are not saying this is what actually happened but intend only to show that the deliberate demolition of the WTC was actually plausible."

If in fact the truth movement is full of experts on demolition, engineering, fire fighting, etc, then surely they could then lay out a detailed, plausible scenario on how the WTC could have been wired and blown up. The problem is you have can't even show that the covert demolition was even possible - why is that?

[CGowen]

59. Gordon Ross does it for example

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615&q=gordon+ross&total=186&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[jberryhill]

23. Why Warn Anyone?

So, let me see if I have this straight.

The people who blew up WTC1 and WTC2 - chock full of firefighters who died in the collapses - became concerned about the potential hazard of WTC7 and decided to circulate these "warnings".

Why?

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Exactly -- and the "engineer-type guy" issued his warning just before the collapse

If "they" didn't care about the firefighters dying, why warn about the impending collapse at all?

If "they" did care about firefighters dying, why did they wait until it was too late to do anything about it?

The absurdities of this paper begin to reveal themselves.

[SDuderstadt]

28. Quit trying to use Logic with the CT's...

you know it just drives them batshit crazy

[mrgerbik]

31. good question

but I don't think that would impede any idea of CT.

Some conjecture:

The flow of information, especially after witnessing 2 massive towers coming down, would be at best slowed in a situation of 'total' information control... there would be people talking everywhere.

Maybe the information handlers had gone 'offline' for a time and people privy to knowledge made some mistakes in relaying stuff they knew??

At specific times and places, people may heave slipped up. It would probably be unavoidable and planned for. If there were slip ups, I don't know how much worry there would be that the whole enchilada would collapse - that sort of contingency wouldn't fall into that stage of the plan. That would most likely be left for some damage control phase afterwords.
Remember: conspiracies rely on the public to be dutiful, trustworthy, and stupid. So this 'inconsequential' information would get lost in the mess... who cares right?

These aren't superhumans with the ability to pull off something as massive as this with 100% precision and perfection. Only the OCT claims they should have.

[mhatrw]

36. Because they needed to clear the area of legitimate first responders.

And restrict all WTC complex access to black operatives. And their ridiculously improbably clairvoyant and largely unexplained prediction of WTC-7's "imminent collapse" gave them the cover to do just that for well over four hours.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. Once again, Do You Have ANY EVIDENCE Of These Black Operatives?

The questions you keep avoiding...

[mhatrw]

44. Follow the bouncing ball, bolo.

jberryhill mockingly asked for a hypothetical motive.

I supplied just that requested hypothetical motive. A black ops crew was needed to clean up (and steal the gold?) for a few hours before any of the thousands of honest emergency responders (who would otherwise have been inconvenient witnesses) were allowed to enter the WTC site. The bizarre and unexplainable (but bizarrely prescient) prediction that WTC-7's collapse was imminent many hours before it finally collapsed gave the black ops clean up crew the cover story they needed in order to work in complete secrecy. What other explanation do you have for literally thousands of emergency responders just standing around twiddling their thumbs on the perimeter of the WTC complex and doing ABSOLUTELY nothing for hours in the midst of the biggest domestic emergency in NYC history? Remember that there were potentially scores of still living, but soon to be dead, people buried in rubble at this point.

[Bolo Boffin]

51. Oh, I'm following it.

I can't believe the almighty spin you got on it, but I'm following it, all right.

:woohoo: :spray: :rofl:

[jberryhill]

64. Where do you get "mockingly" out of that?

I'm trying to understand why someone who just killed a lot of firefighters suddenly started caring enough to warn them.

Now I'm trying to understand what this "black ops" crew was up to, that couldn't be done in a much simpler way. I don't understand your reference to "stealing gold" at all, since none of the institutions which had valuable metals in the vicinity are claiming any to be missing.

The article to which you linked is kind of odd. It refers to news that gold had been recovered which was owned by one institution, and then essentially goes on to ask "What about the other companies that had valuable metals there?" Umm... are they claiming any to be missing? I'm certain that movements of significant amounts of valuable metals are not reported in the press on a regular basis, and I also wouldn't expect news articles to be inventories of everything recovered from the site.

Futhermore, the metals locations have zip to do with building 7. Dropping two 110 story buildings on top of some place from which you want to steal something seems a peculiarly brain-damaged approach.


emergency responders just standing around twiddling their thumbs on the perimeter


The first priority in any rescue situation is not to increase the number of people in need of rescue. This is why, for example, first responders sat outside of the SF Zoo when that tiger was on the loose.

[mhatrw]

73. And why they never sent any responders into the twin towers in the first place.

Right?

[jberryhill]

74. I'm trying to understand that comment

When operations started at the towers, there was no belief that the towers were in danger of collapse. Firefighters are perfectly aware that steel buildings can collapse from fire, and it is a credit to the standards which have evolved since the collapse of the Equitable Insurance building from fire in 1912 that no skyscrapers have done so. But that is only the result of active sprinkler systems and the assumption the fire will be fought. The steel members of the Meridian Building in Philadelphia, for example, were damaged beyond repair after the fire there. Similarly, the steel portion of the Windsor Tower did collapse, leaving only the reinforced concrete supported upper section.

Prior to the first collapse, police were warned, based on helicopter observation, that the tower appeared to be deforming. Firefighters didn't get the warning, because of the incompatibility of radios and the problems that had not been fixed since the 1993 bombing.

Building collapse is a leading cause of firefighter deaths across the board, and making an assessment of building conditions is a priority in firefighting operations. One problem with the towers was the communication problems which hampered the fire department's ability to even know what the situation was in the impact zones by the time the first tower collapsed.

It is perfectly well documented that Chief Nigro made the decision to abandon the effort to save building 7 because he and others believed the building was not safe.

Where, in any of these oral histories, does anyone recount the entry and exit of your "black ops" team through the perimeter that was established around the building?

[mhatrw]

83. Perhaps this will help. (One can always hope.)

When operations started at the towers, there was no belief that the towers were in danger of collapse.

Why not?

Firefighters are perfectly aware that steel buildings can collapse from fire, and it is a credit to the standards which have evolved since the collapse of the Equitable Insurance building from fire in 1912 that no skyscrapers have done so. But that is only the result of active sprinkler systems and the assumption the fire will be fought.

Are you really claiming that in every case of a steel-framed high-rise fire since 1912, there have been active, working sprinkler systems and an active firefighting effort?

The steel members of the Meridian Building in Philadelphia, for example, were damaged beyond repair after the fire there. Similarly, the steel portion of the Windsor Tower did collapse, leaving only the reinforced concrete supported upper section.

Please show us the photos of these "collapsed" structures. We are all very curious to see them.

Prior to the first collapse, police were warned, based on helicopter observation, that the tower appeared to be deforming. Firefighters didn't get the warning, because of the incompatibility of radios and the problems that had not been fixed since the 1993 bombing.

Yes, this is the current OCT "explaining" why the police but not firefighters were warned out of the South Tower. Can you produce a photo, video or any other manner of evidence that demonstrates this "helicopter observed" leaning?

Building collapse is a leading cause of firefighter deaths across the board, and making an assessment of building conditions is a priority in firefighting operations. One problem with the towers was the communication problems which hampered the fire department's ability to even know what the situation was in the impact zones by the time the first tower collapsed.

Exactly how many of these firefighter deaths were the result of the collapse of steel-framed high-rises (not including those on 9/11)?

It is perfectly well documented that Chief Nigro made the decision to abandon the effort to save building 7 because he and others believed the building was not safe.

Yes. What isn't "perfectly well documented" is WHY.

Where, in any of these oral histories, does anyone recount the entry and exit of your "black ops" team through the perimeter that was established around the building?

Good question. Unfortunately, when I examined these 503 oral histories I was simply scanning them looking for any and all mentions of WTC-7. If an oral history didn't mention WTC-7 explicitly, I skipped over it. What I did find was a bunch of accounts of firefighters being told to clear out from Ground Zero and twiddle their thumbs 2 to 6 hours in advance of the WTC-7's collapse. In order to answer your question, I need to do more research.

[SDuderstadt]

60. Oh, for the love of God....

you can't be serious. Are you now claiming the FDNY got duped into establishing collapse zones so that black operatives could rig it to blow AFTER the fact? They were,'t even smart enough to wire the building BEFORE it was extensively damaged?? Do you have any evidence at all for this absurd claim? Please.

The irony here is that you CT's wonder why you aren't taken seriously.

[mhatrw]

61. When did I say anything about anyone rigging WTC-7 to blow on 9/11?

Try reading a bit more carefully, please.

[SDuderstadt]

63. Okay....

then what is your hypothesis as to how and why WTC 7 collapsed? Your posts are all over the map.

[jberryhill]

71. It seems....

That he is claiming that WTC7 was not necessarily rigged for explosives on that day, but was rigged in advance. However, despite the fact that the area had been evacuated of civilians pretty early on, some "black ops" crew needed an additional several hours to do something they couldn't have done that morning. Accordingly, everybody needed to be cleared out for most of the afternoon, and this crew managed to get in and out of the perimeter around the building without being noticed, even though clearing the area required all of the roads in and out to be sealed off.

Then, when they were done, they used the pre-placed silent explosives to blow the building.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Daniel Nigro made the call and explained his reasoning.

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times < adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!>). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

FEMA's statement of "low probability" is only of their best hypothesis as to the "specifics" (their word) of WTC's collapse due to unfought fires to its impact-damaged structure. Nigro did not go into specifics. He made a judgment call, and it turned out to be correct.

I am aware that accepting these simple facts and reasoning doesn't allow you to footstamp about FEMA, the FDNY officials, and/or the "engineer-type guy." I fully expect you not to accept this so that you can continue your often repeated and factually incorrect statements.

[mhatrw]

35. Nothing about leaning, nothing about bulging, and nothing about a transit.

Nothing about any giant gashes in WTC-7's structure.

Strange that whenever someone has to make an official statement, they fail to mention these commonly cited OCT "facts." Isn't it?

[Bolo Boffin]

40. On your next visit to a dictionary, please look up these two words.

"Complimentary" and "contradictory."

[mhatrw]

45. On your next visit to a dictionary, please look up this word.

"disinformation"

[Bolo Boffin]

49. Oh, so disinformation is why you are arguing that complimentary reports are contradictory?

I see. Thanks for that admission.

[Twist_U_Up]

62. Boffin...You have been faced......

You have been exposed as being transparent once again.
Stop beating this dead horse.

[Fainter]

65. On UR Next Visit Look Up "Complementary" And "Complimentary" Genius n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

66. I'll be.

I had typed it right in the first place. They changed the Internet page on me! LOL.

[SDuderstadt]

67. While you're at it....

learn how to spell "demolition". Or would you have us believe the internet page made you spell that wrong too (demolion)?

Just kidding, Bolo. I couldn't resist. We need some humorous relief from the battle with absurd conspiracy theories sometimes.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Typos - the wustest thing I do.

But I swear I checked that last night! Yes, I saw the demolition one as well, too late.

[SDuderstadt]

70. I no

mee two

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

91. Do you know why that post is edited, Fainter?

Because I typed "complementary" first, and then checked to make sure that it was the correct word, and screwed THAT up.

I'm not a hypocrite. I made a mistake, and I freely admitted it. I was wrong. That is something you will rarely see from the people I discuss issues with here.

Yet you hold me to this exacting standard while letting unacknowledged mistake after mistake from the other side slide.

Holding me to an absurd double standard while moaning about absurd double standards, hmm. Is there a word in the dictionary for that, I wonder?

By the way, calling someone a hypocrite or their posts here hypocrisy is against the rules. Please abide by the rules.

[Fainter]

92. The Earth Is Flat. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

93. That is a factually inaccurate statement, Fainter. n/t

[Fainter]

95. No, We Need Relief From Absurd Double Standards...

Bolo played dictionary boy with mhatrw and then, in his very next utterance, confused "complementary" with "complimentary". A small point to be sure, and one I don't go out of my way to raise, but it is laughable that Bolo can correct mhatrw on his understanding of the language then in his next breath bungle the same. The fault is not the use of language, it's the lack of self-awareness.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. "One I don't go out of my way to raise"

But you do repost your observation in a more civil tone. Since that's not out of your way, we should understand that pointing out my every flaw and foible is part of what you're here for?

I mixed up two words admittedly, and I admitted to a greater error. The person with whom I am speaking is seeking to prove that the government of the United States deliberately attacked its own people. And I'm the one you want to pick nits with?????

[Fainter]

103. It Is Nitpicking To Correct Usage (I Plead Guilty), But U Nitpicked...

then committed the same kind of mistake in your next sentence. Your defense of such is hilariously self-righteous Bolo, you hoisted yourself on your own petard. Move on. Few, I believe, consider it civil for one to criticize the minor shortcomings of others then, in the next breath, display the same shortcoming themselves. What, are you a comedian? Further, you're not exactly hard to find on this forum, in fact, you are probably the premier poster in terms of volume. Therefore, any feeling of persecution you have is probably mistaken. BTW, the person with whom you were speaking has a name, mhatrw, and fully half the people on this board suspect the government's role in 9/11. What's your point?

Or do I strain at gnats, swat flies, etc.?

[jberryhill]

75. What do you suppose he meant by:

"2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7."

Is it necessary for him to recite each and every piece of information that led him to believe the building was damaged?

[mhatrw]

80. No. But why isn't there a SINGLE mention of a transit being put on WTC-7

in ANY official report, statement or investigation of WTC-7's collapse? Wouldn't you agree that, were it to actually exist, direct scientific evidence that WTC-7 was leaning or bulging would be extremely relevant to any investigations of or explanations about WTC-7's collapse? Please answer the questions.

[SDuderstadt]

81. While they're at it...

I'd like to know the color of the shoes the person operating the transit wore. I'm sure that's important too.

Your post is nonsense. I mean, seriously, do you think they put the transit on the building for any reason other than to determine if it was safe to enter? Why on earth would anyone, once determining the answer to that question, think they had to "preserve the readings" when their aim was to protect the lives of the first responders? Do you honestly think that they were thinking, "hmmm, this may be needed in an investigation"? Do you think that, given the urgency of the situation, things like that just weren't regarded as all that important and you're seizing on it as if it somehow proves MIHOP or LIHOP or whatever HOP you're flogging today?

[mhatrw]

84. OCT-lite!

I'd like to know the color of the shoes the person operating the transit wore.

How does this follow logically?

I mean, seriously, do you think they put the transit on the building for any reason other than to determine if it was safe to enter?

What I am saying is that the lack of a single mention of evidence as important to any explanation of WTC-7's as any putative transit measurements in any official clearly and profoundly argues against the actual existence of such measurements. What does the question of why these putative transit measurements may have been made have to do with my argument?

Why on earth would anyone, once determining the answer to that question, think they had to "preserve the readings" when their aim was to protect the lives of the first responders?

Even if one did not "preserve" these measurements would not one preserve the memory of having made them and determined from them that WTC-7 was leaning or bulging by at least a memorable qualitative amount? And wouldn't the person who made these measurements be among the very most important persons to interview if one were performing any investigation into the cause WTC-7's collapse?

Do you honestly think that they were thinking, "hmmm, this may be needed in an investigation"? Do you think that, given the urgency of the situation, things like that just weren't regarded as all that important and you're seizing on it as if it somehow proves MIHOP or LIHOP or whatever HOP you're flogging today?

Again, what does the significance of these putative measurements then have to do with the significance of these putative measurements in the 6+ years since WTC-7 mysteriously imploded?

[SDuderstadt]

86. I fricking give up

Seriously, I can't do this anymore. It's like trying to convince Raymond Babbit that "Who's on 1st?" isn't a riddle.

[jberryhill]

85. "Direct scientific evidence"?

...and your reference to "measurements" or "data" lower in the thread are puzzling.

Hayden says:

"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."

He doesn't say anything about making measurements or conducted a scientific study, and it's not clear whether he is "pretty sure she was going to collapse" on the basis of having used the transit.

As far as making some kind of quantitative measurement goes, even in the days after, they weren't using them for surveying measurements, but for something much simpler:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020916-fcw2.htm

A local construction survey company was managing "transits" to measure the building's movements. Transits are used to measure grade and elevation electronically. They were fixed on a point on the side of the building and checked about every five minutes to see if the building had moved, Lacko said. But the transits could give inaccurate readings because they were unable to filter out vibrations from heavy machinery or other factors in the area.


So it could have been something as simple as sighting a fixed point, waiting for a period of time, and then looking through it again to see if that fixed point is still where it was. What "critical data" do you expect to get from that?

But if there had not been a suspicion that there was a danger of collapse, he wouldn't have even mentioned having used a transit for any purpose - even if it was just to do two sightings separated in time.

"and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse"

...does not necessarily mean "we had put a transit on that, and because of what we found from using the transit we concluded it was going to collapse" particularly since he says, "Early on, we saw a bulge <....> You actually could see there was a visible bulge"

Have you ever been interviewed by a newspaper or magazine reporter?

If the purpose of the interview was to pin down exactly what set of facts led him to conclude there was a collapse hazard then I'm pretty sure we'd have a more precise statement.


Wouldn't you agree that, were it to actually exist, direct scientific evidence that WTC-7 was leaning or bulging would be extremely relevant to any investigations of or explanations about WTC-7's collapse?


Agree? I'm certain it will be.

I don't know how many scientists were running around lower Manhattan that day, but, sure.

[mhatrw]

87. The bottom line is that Hayden clearly claims that "we" put a transit on WTC-7.

For anyone investigating why or how WTC-7 collapsed, the question of when this transit was put on WTC-7 and what it showed is paramount.

However, no official statement ever mentions one whit about this transit evidence. FEMA's initial WTC-7 report doesn't mention one thing about any transit being put on WTC-7. NIST's "5-years-in-the making" progress report doesn't mention one thing about any transit being put on WTC-7.

Why not?

[Bolo Boffin]

88. Why do you keep making factually inaccurate statements?

NIST's progress report was released in June 2004. That's 3 3/4 years in the making, not 5.

You continue to ignore my reasonable explanation of this. Why?

[mhatrw]

97. What is your reasonable explanation?

About one-third of the NIST's progress report is devoted to detailing evidence of structural damage to WTC-7, including pages of evidence as flimsy as eyewitness reports. So why would NIST exclude the transit evidence -- some of the very best evidence in existence, if it in fact exists?

[SDuderstadt]

99. Evidence of what?

That the building was unstable and needed to be evacuated, as well as having a collapse zone established around it? Hint: That's why they did it, not for some future investigation.

[mhatrw]

102. Once again, how do the original motives of the transit measurements

rule out their subsequent interest to any investigation into the causes of WTC-7's collapse? You are not being logical.

[Bolo Boffin]

104. See post 72, again. n/t

[mhatrw]

105. Cute. You've got less than nothing, as usual. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

106. Bullshit. Compared to your corker about black operatives, it's a model of sanity and clarity.

What exactly is wrong with that idea?

Hayden and the other chief set up the transit. They come back thirty minutes or an hour later and check it. The bulge has grown so much, they don't even write it down. They see the building is losing structural integrity. So Nigro decides to pull everybody.

FEMA and NIST don't use it because it wasn't written down. Simple.

What exactly is outlandish about that?

[mhatrw]

107. Go to page L-17 of NIST's progress report and start reading.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

NIST relied on dozens of (uncited) eyewitness reports to determine the pre-collapse damage to WTC-7. Just start reading. From page 17: "The following information about damage seen in WTC 7 was obtained from interviews of people in or near the building:"

A summary of these interviews then continues for the next two pages.

Now continue on to page 22: "Information about fires in other areas of the building was obtained from interviews, and is summarized as follows:"

A summary of these interviews then continues for the next four pages.

So NIST saw fit to include approximately 6 pages of summaries of the structural damage and fire that uncited witnesses claimed the WTC-7 had sustained at various times of the day, but failed to make any mention whatsoever of the supposed transit measurements that supposedly led the FDNY to conclude that WTC-7 was going to collapse 4+ hours before it fell merely because this information "wasn't written down" on the day of 9/11? Please. How in the hell do interviews about what one witnessed with one's eyes trump interviews about what one witnessed with a surveying instrument?

Furthermore, NIST's own summary of the damage to WTC-7 that "was obtained from interviews of people in or near the building" makes no mention whatsoever of the oft-repeated OCT legend that WTC-7 was visibly "bulging" or "leaning" for many hours before it finally collapsed. And considering how crucial this information would be to any hypothetical non-CD explanation of WTC-7's collapse, we are left with just two possibilities: either no interviewees were willing to repeat the yarns they spun for www.firehouse.com when they interviewed with NIST or else NIST simply dismissed these reports as untenable.

[SDuderstadt]

108. Another case of selective quoting

Here's your claim:

"NIST relied on dozens of (uncited) eyewitness reports to determine the pre-collapse damage to WTC-7."

You attempt to establish and buttress your claim by selectively quoting the NIST study thusly:

"From page 17: 'The following information about damage seen in WTC 7 was obtained from interviews of people in or near the building:' ".

The problem with your claim is that you leave the reader with the false impression that is all NIST did, by leaving out pertinent information so as to give the reader an incomplete picture. And what you left out is higher on that same page, to wit:

"This section presents observed data and events from available drawings, photographic and videographic records, interviews, and other data sources for WTC 7 to identify damage and fire locations."

So, in other words, the interviews were just one part of the method NIST employed to assemble the record of the day. Here's my question. Why did you leave that out? Are you deliberately trying to mislead the reader? Or, do you think the bigger picture is not needed? Your lead-in ("NIST relied on dozens of (uncited) eyewitness reports to determine the pre-collapse damage to WTC-7.") is intellectually dishonest and, frankly, betrays tactics which makes people with critical thinking skills distrust you. Why don't you talk about all the other evidence that NIST assembled? I believe it's because portraying NIST thusly gives credence to your basic theme: that NIST is stacking the deck. The irony here is that it is YOU which is, in fact, trying to stack the deck. Reading through the study, NIST presents compelling evidence from multiple sources of exactly what FDNY maintained: that WTC 7 showed multiple signs of instability prior to its ultimate collapse and, more tellingly, well before CT's claim CD initiated the collapse.


Why do you continue to try to mislead people? The one good (and probably unintended) consequence of your post is that your fellow CT's just might read the whole study (rather than rely on the partial and misleading accounts from CT websites) and realize they've been taken for a ride. Secondarily, you might begin to feel some remorse for your role in it, but I frankly doubt it.

[mhatrw]

112. What in the world does ANY of this have to do with my point?

Please explain your logic. My point is that if NIST relied on a slew of interviews about what people witnessed on 9/11 with their eyes, why would they exclude interviews about what people witnessed on 9/11 with a surveying instrument?

Sure, NIST considered other evidence. But how does this explain anything about NIST's exclusion of the OCT-claimed transit and eyewitness evidence that supposedly showed that WTC-7's structure was measurably leaning and bulging hours before it collapsed?

[SDuderstadt]

113. Duh....

because they didn't need additional evidence as what they had was fricking overwhelming. That's why. Are you seriously claiming Hayden is lying? Or cannot be trusted to give his account truthfully? What exactly are you claiming here?

[mhatrw]

117. If other, better evidence was overwhelming, why did NIST rely on

any eyewitness interviews at all? And since they did rely on numerous eyewitness interviews to determine their pre-collapse WTC-7 damage and fire assessments, why would they exclude any and all evidence concerning the very reason the entire FDNY supposedly agreed the WTC-7 was going to collpase hours before it did -- namely, that WTC-7 was (supposedly) visibly leaning and bulging for most of the afternoon before it collapsed?

Just stop arguing for just a second, slow down, use your brain, and consider the huge ramifications that any such observations would have for any putative collapse explanation. Now tell us again, why did both FEMA and NIST ignore any and all testimony concerning the supposed leaning and bulging of WTC-7?

[SDuderstadt]

118. I've already explained this once....

but it's also clear that neither FEMA nor NIST thinks it's important to debunk silly claims from the "truth" movement when they have overwhelming evidence.

[mhatrw]

120. OK. Stop. Pretend you are in charge of determining the exact physical mechanisms that

resulted in WTC-7's collapse. Would you or would you not want to know if the building was visibly leaning and/or bulging for hours before it collapsed? Hint: This isn't tricky. You should be able to get it!

[Bolo Boffin]

111. Besides SDuderstadt's excellent post, I'd like to add

1. You have no evidence that NIST even talked to Hayden. Your entire post is simply grandstanding on a hypothetical.

2. I've been thinking about the transit setup. To be useful to NIST, the FDNY would had to have established the precise location of the transit on a map, and the precise distance from WTC 7 to the transit. Obviously, they did not do that. They didn't have time to do that. They had other things to do. They set up the transit and came back a few minutes later. That was enough to determine that the building was indeed deforming badly. So they abandoned it. It was a battle they weren't going to win.

3. In your comprehensive reading of all the oral histories (or should I say cherry picking excursion?), you must have run across statements expressing concern that other buildings might collapse that day, WTC 5 and the like. Those buildings did not fall. WTC 7 did. They had concerns about every building damaged in the wake of the Towers. WTC 7 gave Nigro great cause for concern, for the reasons he summarized, and he gave the order. He says EXPRESSLY that no one told him to do this. He did this on his own.

Now present your evidence that Nigro was in on the fix or shut the fuck up.

[mhatrw]

114. Like I said before, you've got nothing.

SDuderstadt's "excellent post" has nothing to do with NIST ignoring any and all testimony about WTC-7 supposedly leaning and bulging for hours before it collapsed.

You have no evidence that NIST even talked to Hayden. Your entire post is simply grandstanding on a hypothetical.

Is it now your claim that Hayden is the only person on 9/11 to witness the WTC-7's supposedly visible bulging and leaning? Is it now your claim that Hayden is the only person on 9/11 with any knowledge of the transit that was supposed put on WTC-7 that supposedly led the FDNY to conclude that WTC-7's collapse was imminent?

I've been thinking about the transit setup. To be useful to NIST, the FDNY would had to have established the precise location of the transit on a map, and the precise distance from WTC 7 to the transit. Obviously, they did not do that. They didn't have time to do that. They had other things to do. They set up the transit and came back a few minutes later. That was enough to determine that the building was indeed deforming badly. So they abandoned it. It was a battle they weren't going to win.

So NIST's relied on dozens of eyewitness accounts -- none of which establish anything precisely, but NIST was forced to ignore any and all evidence that WTC-7 had been bulging and leaning for hours before it fell (both eyewitness evidence and evidence supposedly gathered from a far more objective and reliable surveyor's tool) because why? Because, against all logic and reason, you say so? :eyes:

3. In your comprehensive reading of all the oral histories (or should I say cherry picking excursion?), you must have run across statements expressing concern that other buildings might collapse that day, WTC 5 and the like. Those buildings did not fall. WTC 7 did. They had concerns about every building damaged in the wake of the Towers. WTC 7 gave Nigro great cause for concern, for the reasons he summarized, and he gave the order. He says EXPRESSLY that no one told him to do this. He did this on his own.

Now present your evidence that Nigro was in on the fix or shut the fuck up.

None of this has anything to do with anything we have been discussing. It is nothing more than rank misdirection, just like SDuderstadt's non sequitur. Yes, a handful of oral histories say "they" (presumably FDNY fire chiefs) were concerned that other buildings might collapse. So what? Furthermore, Nigro never said anything about any supposed transit evidence, and even if he had, so what? I have never claimed that any FDNY official was "in on" anything. All I am saying is that in my judgment, as well as that of both FEMA and NIST, any and all claims that WTC-7 was leaning or bulging at any time before its collapse sequence initiated are erroneous.

[Bolo Boffin]

115. You have not established that NIST was told about the transit.

Until you do, YOU got nothing.

You are seeking to deny actual accounts of what happened that day, from people who were there and who participated in them, by playing them against the NIST report. FEMA and NIST's silence on leaning or bulging is NOT a claim that those accounts are erroneous, and it is BULLSHIT for you to suggest otherwise.

[mhatrw]

119. You're right. The FDNY brass ever told NIST anything about how and why they determined WTC-7

was going to collapse on 9/11. They withheld this crucial evidence from NIST, making NIST's entire six-years-in-the-making-and still-not-completed investigation into the causes of WTC-7's collapse utterly worthless.

And everybody heard it right here first from boloboffin himself! Congratulations on your big scoop, boloboffin!

[Bolo Boffin]

121. :eyes:

See you in six months when you decide to come back and start this conversation all over again.

[mhatrw]

123. That should give you almost enough time to lick your wounds. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

125. Yes, I split my sides laughing at your posts.

You should go easy with that, you'll hurt somebody.

[mhatrw]

126. Laughter is the best medicine for a broken heart. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

127. You have no evidence of the state of my heart.

However, having no evidence has never stopped you from making factually inaccurate statements before, and I doubt it ever will.

[SDuderstadt]

116. Please point out exactly how my post is either....

misdirection or a non sequitur. Be specific.

[jberryhill]

89. Because Hayden was "in on it"?

Is that the right answer?

It may indeed be mentioned in the NIST final report, but there's something about your excitement on this point that I really don't get.

But again, Hayden's casual statement in the course of a magazine interview is ambiguous as to whether anything done with the transit caused him to conclude it was coming down. He says they used a transit, but he also says it was visibly bulging.

Hayden isn't dead, you know. Have you tried contacting him about it, instead of badgering on about it here?

Answering the question of "why did people think it was going to fall down" is not all that important to answering the question of "why did it fall down".

As you know, clear photographs of the South Side are far and few between, due to smoke from the fires. But I do believe that NIST, and its many outside consultants and experts, have been collecting as many usuable photographs, films, measurement, and witness statement about the condition of that building in the course of the investigation. Why do you think that these materials will be excluded from consideration?

[mhatrw]

98. You are making no sense.

Imagine you are assigned to figure out why WTC-7 collapsed. Now imagine that you know that somebody put a transit on WTC-7 that day. Are you telling me that you wouldn't want to talk to that person to find out what the transit showed when?

[SDuderstadt]

100. Yeah, because....

there is plenty of other evidence. Are you claiming WTC 7 was brought down by CD? Are you?

[mhatrw]

101. See, that makes no sense whatsover. You would rather NOT examine

the transit evidence because why? Because you think I'm claiming CD? How about trying logic for a change?

[jberryhill]

110. Then USE logic

Hayden is alive. You can reach him. If you want to know something about his direct experience, what "logic" leads you to ask folks to parse a couple of sentences in a trade magazine interview?

[mhatrw]

122. Because you can't have it both ways, jberryhill.

Either Hayden is mistaken or the everything FEMA and NIST have said about WTC-7 collapses to this point is worthless because their investigations have completely ignored the most crucial evidence about WTC-7's collapse available.

[jberryhill]

128. "Most crucial" in your mind

The NIST final report is not completed. Your assertion that Hayden or any other firefighter testimony was "ignored" is without any basis.

Furthermore, as you cannot seem to grasp, even the magazine quote does not say that Hayden's conclusion was solely or even largely based on any sort of transit measurement. You do not know whether the situation was simply one of looking, waiting, and looking again, which does not yield any data of any kind, "crucial" or otherwise.

It is only the "most crucial" evidence in your mind because it received passing mention in an oral interview and you haven't seen it in a report which has not been completed.

But you do assert the presence of some "black ops team" which NOBODY mentioned seeing.

The fire and police departments were not out there conducting engineering studies for the purpose of settling some sort of academic question. They were, on the worst day of their lives and in the face of the worst tragedy they had ever witnessed, trying to figure out what to do next and how to avoid further loss of life. THAT was their job - not making you happy with precision in either their choice of words or the degree of caution they decided to exercise on the basis of events unfolding in front of their eyes.

[mhatrw]

129. You are missing the point, again.

It's not just that NIST has completely ignored the ostensible transit evidence to this point. It's that both NIST and FEMA have completely ignored any and all purported evidence that suggests WTC-7 was bulging or leaning at anytime before its collapse sequence initiated. Even you must realize that the question of whether or not WTC-7's structure was actually bulging and leaning for hours has a direct and fundamental bearing on any determination of the exact mechanisms of WTC-7's collapse. Therefore, we are left with two choices. Either all of the purported evidence that the WTC-7 was bulging and leaning for hours before it fell is in fact completely inaccurate or else both FEMA and NIST have ignored evidence central to their WTC-7 investigations.

For a staunch and uncompromising defender of the official conspiracy theory, this is a case of picking your poison. Therefore, I don't expect any more discussion on the subject short of side steps and swipes. However, perhaps you are more reasonable than your peers. If so, great, let's continue this discussion. Which of the two possibilities outlined above do you think is more likely -- that the FDNY's purported evidence of WTC-7 bulging and leaning for hours before it fell was erroneous or that both FEMA's WTC-7 investigation and NIST's four-years-in-the-making WTC-7 progress report are fatally flawed because they completely excluded critical evidence about the observed sequence of WTC-7's structural failure -- the very evidence that supposedly allowed the FDNY to determine WTC-7's collapse was imminent hours before it fell?

[Bolo Boffin]

130. Perhaps you should withhold your judgment.

From the Dec. 12, 2006 update on the NIST WTC 7 report.

[mhatrw]

132. Way to go, NIST!

And way to go, boloboffin, with your slick photoshopped graphics!

If NIST just keeps putting off releasing their final WTC-7 report for a few more decades, it may just be able to tie up all of these loose ends into a nice OCT bow! I can almost hear the wheels (excrutiatingly slowly) turning as we are having this little discussion!

While I wouldn't put anything past NIST after reading its WTC "debunking" FAQ, I somehow doubt that, after putting out a progress report that ignored all evidence that WTC-7 was leaning/bulging and going so far as to develop a "working theory" of WTC-7's collapse initiation without considering any such evidence that NIST will somehow manage to do a complete 180 6+ years after the fact and incorporate this evidence into its final report (if it ever actually releases one, that is). But I suppose that anything is possible when your mission is not to investigate the physical evidence but instead to shore up the OCT at any cost.

So let's suppose that when the final NIST report comes out next century, it says that WTC-7 was bulging and leaning for hours before it fell. Am I the only one who thinks it's off-the-charts bizarre that NIST would take over six years to get around to ever even acknowledging the existence of the very evidence that supposedly allowed the FDNY to determine that the WTC-7 was going to collapse hours before it collapsed? How in the hell is it possible that that both FEMA and NIST somehow managed to completely ignore this critical and primary evidence to this point in time -- 6+ years after the fact?

[Bolo Boffin]

134. The working hypothesis isn't about collapse initiation, mhatrw.

Another factually inaccurate statement from you. It's about how the collapse propagated. The initiating event isn't specified at all in the working hypothesis.

Acknowledging this condition of WTC 7 in the accounts of several firefighters would not be a complete 180 for NIST. You continue to portray the two positions as contradictory when they are complementary. Another of your factually inaccuracies.

Very likely you will not be the only one who thinks it's off-the-charts bizarre. However, you will be among the very few.

[mhatrw]

135. Just answer one question.

Why hasn't any statement even so much as implying that the WTC-7 was bulging or leaning at any time before its collapse sequence initiated ever appeared in any official FDNY statement, FEMA report or NIST release to this day?

[Bolo Boffin]

136. How should I know?

Anything I said would be speculation on my part. Let's wait for the actual report, shall we?

[mhatrw]

137. Translation: You can't think of any explanation for this that sounds even

remotely reasonable, so you just wish that we would all stop thinking about it.

It's as if I just asked a priest what God was doing before He invented the universe.

[Bolo Boffin]

138. The author of "black operatives stealing the gold" is chiding me for

not speaking when I don't possess the knowledge.

Next, you'll be telling me to try the veal, right?

[mhatrw]

142. You have no trouble speculating when you think you are making sense, boloboffin.

Will you stipulate this fact, or do you need me to refresh your memory?

[Bolo Boffin]

147. Now the "Black operatives stealing the gold" guy is threatening me with my own words.

Sure, I'll stipulate that fact, and I'll put any speculation of mine right next to yours for a "making sense" contest ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.

[hack89]

140. How do you know what evidence NIST has?

If I understand you correctly, there is something wrong because they don't publicly release every piece of evidence as soon as they get it. Is that what you are getting at?

[Bolo Boffin]

141. The God of the Gaps. n/t

[mhatrw]

143. Here is the OCT as it currently stands.

1) There is nothing whatsoever strange about the fact the FDNY knew that WTC-7 was going to collapse hours before it collapsed on 9/11 because everyone there could see that WTC-7 was visibly bulging and leaning.

2) There is nothing whatsoever strange about the fact that there has never been any official mention -- by the FDNY, FEMA or NIST -- WTC-7 was visibly bulging and leaning for many hours before it collapsed because it makes perfect sense that they would sit on this critical evidence for over six years.

Is that what you are getting at?

[hack89]

144. I am not inclined to follow you much further into the weeds

suffice it to say is that I think you are making a mountain out of a mole-hill. There is plenty of other evidence of how damaged WTC7 was before it collapsed. But believe what you want to believe - I think we all know that you mind is made up.

[mhatrw]

145. The only thing my mind is made up about is the fact that you OCTers

put Jehovah's Witnesses to shame in your blind devotion to Official Conspiracy Theory Of 9/11.

If something doesn't add up, it must be ignored.

[hack89]

146. Except you can't tell us why it is important

it adds up fine to us - the FDNY knew the building was going to fall. The transit was one of many pieces of info that went into that determination. You have no idea whether or not NIST has the info or whether it even significantly adds anything to their study. It just is another "smoking gun" spun out of the most minor inconsistency.


It says a lot of the state of the truth movement that such inconsequential matters have to be blown up into smoking guns.

[mhatrw]

149. Either FEMA & NIST heard this information and determined that it

was not credible, or they never heard this information making their studies very expensive exercises in ineptitude that completely ignored the very evidence that supposedly allowed even casual observers on 9/11 to determine WTC-7's collapse was a foregone conclusion. So which is it?

[SDuderstadt]

150. Dude...

by the time FEMA and NIST were in the investigation mode, the building had already fallen down. They were charged with finding out exactly why it fell down. I'm not sure I understand why it would be important to their DIRECT investigation of the cause of the collapse for them to waste a lot of time determining whether the FDNY prediction was right or wrong when it was obviously right. Whether they enquired of the FDNY (and you have no idea whether they did or they didn't) as to their observations and whether they included that in the report or chose not to include it because it was SO FRICKING OBVIOUS it was going to collapse, it hardly renders the investigations "very expensive exercises in ineptitude".

Dude, your horse died several weeks ago. I don't know why you continue to beat it.

[SDuderstadt]

148. No, we actually rely on evidence....

you might want to try it sometime.

[jberryhill]

131. What do you mean by "Even you"?

Even you must realize that the question of whether or not WTC-7's structure was actually bulging and leaning for hours has a direct and fundamental bearing on any determination of the exact mechanisms of WTC-7's collapse.

Even someone dimwitted enough to have a doctorate in engineering, like me, would not know whom or what NIST has looked at until they are finished.

I agree that "the question of whether or not WTC-7's structure was actually bulging and leaning" is important, and that is an entirely different question of whether Mr. Hayden's observations are merely cumulative to all of the other observations that the building was compromised.

I'm beginning to think I understand why you find it "critical". You seem to think that:

a) looking at a building, seeing it is in bad condition, and taking a safety measure based on a concern that it may be bad enough to collapse; and

b) determining the manner in which it collapses

...are the same thing.

No, they are not the same thing, and I can think of an example of the difference from my own experience. I don't know if you are old enough to remember the space shuttle Challenger, but I remember that day very well. Having been a longtime space geek, I remember that there were several delays after the shuttle was moved to the pad, and it was out there and fueled for some time. While it was on the pad and prepped to go, there was an unusual Florida frost the night before the launch. I remarked that morning to a friend that it didn't seem right to have the shuttle out and prepped for as long as it was, and exposed to a an unusual temperature condition it had never experienced prior to launch. In my non-expert opinion, it would have been prudent to call off the launch and re-prep, but wtf would I know. Sure enough, it failed, and it wasn't until quite some time thereafter that the investigation found that the failure was a consequence of the effect of the cold on the o-ring in one of the solid rocket booster engines.

Now, I didn't know diddly about the construction of the SRB, but what seemed to make sense to me is that a complex system relying on many things to function right, is more likely to malfunction when exposed to abnormal conditions.

Chief Hayden probably doesn't know very much about structural engineering. However all firefighters are trained to look for gross signs of structural instability, because that's how a lot of firefighters die. The fact that many of them believed the building to be unstable does not mean that they were sitting there predicting any particular collapse sequence.

The mentioned use of a transit by Hayden simply is not, and is not stated by Hayden to be, "the very evidence" upon which Nigro made the decision to abandon efforts in building 7.

But, finally, why do you ignore the 2006 status report by NIST that refers to obtaining and mapping witness obersvations?

[mhatrw]

133. You still don't get it.

I agree that "the question of whether or not WTC-7's structure was actually bulging and leaning" is important, and that is an entirely different question of whether Mr. Hayden's observations are merely cumulative to all of the other observations that the building was compromised.


Do or do you not realize that NOTHING even so much as implying that the WTC-7 was bulging or leaning at any time before its collapse sequence initiated has ever appeared in any official FDNY statement, FEMA report or NIST release to this day?


Chief Hayden probably doesn't know very much about structural engineering. However all firefighters are trained to look for gross signs of structural instability, because that's how a lot of firefighters die.


Really? Firefighters are trained to look for the gross signs of structural instability in steel framed high-rises? Because a lot of firefighters die when these steel-framed high-rises collapse? Where did you learn this? Did you get your doctorate in fire engine-ering?


The fact that many of them believed the building to be unstable does not mean that they were sitting there predicting any particular collapse sequence.


Nobody, least of all me, ever made any such claim. Of course the FDNY wasn't trying to predict any particular collapse sequence. However, FEMA and NIST were tasked with exactly this mission. Which brings us back to the point you keep avoiding. If you yourself, with your doctorate in engineering, were put in charge of determining the exact physical mechanisms that resulted in WTC-7's collapse, would you or would you not want to know if the building was visibly leaning and/or bulging for hours before it collapsed? Would or would not such evidence have any bearing on your investigation?


The mentioned use of a transit by Hayden simply is not, and is not stated by Hayden to be, "the very evidence" upon which Nigro made the decision to abandon efforts in building 7.


The standard OCT line has been that the reason the FDNY (and the BBC) were able to predict the WTC-7's collapse so accurately even though no other fire-proofed steel-framed high-rise had ever collapsed in the history of the world before 9/11 was that WTC-7 was visibly bulging and leaning long before it finally collapsed. Do you agree with the standard OCT line on this or not? If not, what evidence did make the FDNY so certain WTC-7's collapse was imminent that it suspended search and rescue missions at Ground Zero for hours in the midst of the biggest civil emergency in NYC history?


But, finally, why do you ignore the 2006 status report by NIST that refers to obtaining and mapping witness obersvations?


I'm not ignoring anything; FEMA and NIST are. To this date, NOTHING even so much as implying that WTC-7 was bulging or leaning at any time before it collapsed has ever appeared in any official FDNY statement, FEMA report or NIST release -- including the 2006 status report you so bizarrely accuse me of ignoring.

[jberryhill]

109. What makes you think NIST hasn't?

First, I don't know why you think NIST investigators have NOT spoken to Hayden.

Second, I'm fascinated by your notion of "what the transit showed when". As noted w/r/t the use of transits during clean up to assess building stability, we're talking about a pretty simple use of a transit - point it at something like a window corner, and then check it five minutes later to see if it is still pointing at the same thing. That's not a "measurement" process - that's just looking at something, and he says that they saw the corner bulging.

But now you have someone not only taking down measurements while all hell is breaking loose, but recording the time. I doubt anyone was doing much with precision, and I doubt the episode will escape mention in the final report.

Why don't you just spit it out - a complex international conspiracy relied upon securing the cooperation of local officials who would be complicit in the deaths of hundreds of their colleagues, and Hayden is a lying corrupt bastard.

[mhatrw]

124. OK. Stop. Pretend you are in charge of determining the exact physical mechanisms that

resulted in WTC-7's collapse. Would you or would you not want to detemine if the building was visibly leaning and/or bulging for hours before it collapsed? Answer the question.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truth01]

139. BBC reported WTC "collapse" before it happened

Go here:
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/feeds/PiecesOfThePuzzleBox1.html
Scroll down to: "BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell"

and 7+ years later, they George W. Bush administration is still working a story for us of how WTC 7 came down.