FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro's statement on WTC7

Status
Not open for further replies.
The funding came from various sources, mainly from fundraising. Read comprehension FTW!
Can you not see the flaw in that argument? Obviously funding came from 'somewhere', but you seemed to think it was all investigated, documented and known.

I'd look into the book The 9/11 Project: A Journalist's Perspective which has some great information regarding the funding. I'll try to get that information to you before the week is up.

No big deal. You were mistaken, end of story


That's just a stupid thing to ask. Can you prove Jesus wasn't a velociraptor?

No more stupid than what you were asking, (which is why I turned the tables) i.e.
Also, my question about Nigro remains that you refuse to answer; how did he know the building would collapse due to anything else besides the loss of its structural integrity?

To be honest that doesn't make sense on a number of levels as clearly in order for anything to collapse, it must lose its structural integrity, whether it be by fire, explosives or being washed away in a flood.


So, the FDNY was wrong in their assessment of WTC7 on the day of 9/11? Why would they lie? And how is my question a strawman argument? All I'm asking is why did Nigro establish the collapse zone around WTC7?

There could be a number of reasons, it would be pure speculation. The collapse zone was established around midday, well before any fires were even officially reported.

Maybe he was just told to do it.
Maybe it was a safety precaution as the other buildings had already collapsed
Maybe he knew it was going to be demolished

What is clear is there are gaping holes in the OS and the public should know the truth but I am well aware there are many on here who think it presumptious that us mere 'people' should presume to be audatious enough as to expect to be kept informed when clearly the Govt knows best and decides that we should not be trusted to know other than what they feed us.
 
No big deal. You were mistaken, end of story

How am I "mistaken?" We know the money came primarily from fundraising. From the exact person or primary persons? We don't really know. If you want an identify, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave most of the money to the hijackers. Where did he get that money? The fundraising.

To be honest that doesn't make sense on a number of levels as clearly in order for anything to collapse, it must lose its structural integrity, whether it be by fire, explosives or being washed away in a flood.

Except Nigro knows it was from fire and not from explosives. You're either calling him a liar or you're saying he's incompetent at his job. Take your pick, but if you're going to doubt the man's testimony, then be a man about it and not dance around it.

There could be a number of reasons, it would be pure speculation. The collapse zone was established around midday, well before any fires were even officially reported.

Maybe he was just told to do it.
Maybe it was a safety precaution as the other buildings had already collapsed
Maybe he knew it was going to be demolished

What is clear is there are gaping holes in the OS and the public should know the truth but I am well aware there are many on here who think it presumptious that us mere 'people' should presume to be audatious enough as to be kept informed when clearly the Govt knows best and decides that we should not be trusted to know other than what they feed us.

Except he wasn't told to do it. He established the collapse zone on his own accord and has said that multiple times. He says he set it up due to its structural integrity being lost thanks to the unfought fires.

It's funny how you feel that we're defending the OS here. Rather, we're defending logic, reasoning, and critical thinking. We're agreeing with the vast majority of experts in each field. We're agreeing with people who were actually there. All the answers are out there; it just so happens that conspiracy theorists are unhappy with the answers because they don't fit in with what they want to have had happen. They would rather conjure up this looney theories that are supported by nothing more than anomalies and cherry picked evidence. You want a 100%, watertight explanation for what happened, but guess what, you're not going to get one. Why? Because it's humans figuring this stuff out. There are going to be hypothesis that turn out to be untrue. There are going to be holes with information we just don't know. We don't have every single bit of information to satisfy your 100% explanation.

I think, at the very least, we can agree that 9/11 was a new type of event. Never before had fully loaded jets slammed into two of the largest buildings in the world and never into buildings designed the way the WTC was designed. Are we so arrogant as a species now to think that we know everything about what would happen in a situation that we've never dealt with before?
 
How am I "mistaken?" We know the money came primarily from fundraising. From the exact person or primary persons? We don't really know. If you want an identify, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave most of the money to the hijackers. Where did he get that money? The fundraising.
Why can't you admit you are wrong.
A Journalist's Perspective which has some great information regarding the funding
,
it came from fundraising', is not "great information".


Except Nigro knows it was from fire and not from explosives.
And how would he have known that at the time? That type of knowledge can only be established forensically and after examining "all" known possibilities. Why do you think it took so long for NIST to come up with reports. Reports which were erroneous and had to be seriously amended. Why do all that when 'Nigro knew what happened' before it even happened.

You're either calling him a liar or you're saying he's incompetent at his job. Take your pick, but if you're going to doubt the man's testimony, then be a man about it and not dance around it.

He may well be a liar. He wouldn't be the first or last official to lie because he was told to. I do not know and all I am saying is there is enough contradictory evidence from witnesses and video evidence to make his account highly implausible.

Except he wasn't told to do it. He established the collapse zone on his own accord and has said that multiple times. He says he set it up due to its structural integrity being lost thanks to the unfought fires.
So why was the collapse zone established at 12 noon before fires were even officially acknowledged?

It's funny how you feel that we're defending the OS here. Rather, we're defending logic, reasoning, and critical thinking. We're agreeing with the vast majority of experts in each field. We're agreeing with people who were actually there.
No, you are defending the OS by only acknowledging credibility to those who have official backing. That they are in the majority is neither here nor there when you consider that as soon as any one of them dissents or whistle blows, they lose their jobs, their professional standing and are vilified, gagged and often imprisoned.

All the answers are out there; it just so happens that conspiracy theorists are unhappy with the answers because they don't fit in with what they want to have had happen.
That is your opinion but I assure you it is not what most people who challenge the OS 'want'. It is a very difficult thing to even contemplate that 'the world is not how it is presented'. I therefore understand your resistance to questioning the OS.

They would rather conjure up this looney theories that are supported by nothing more than anomalies and cherry picked evidence. You want a 100%, watertight explanation for what happened, but guess what, you're not going to get one. Why? Because it's humans figuring this stuff out. There are going to be hypothesis that turn out to be untrue. There are going to be holes with information we just don't know. We don't have every single bit of information to satisfy your 100% explanation.
You are right that nothing is 100% but surely you can acknowledge there are gaping holes and huge anomalies that at the very least should be properly investigated.

Try focussing in on two little things that I mentioned. The inconsistency with Nigro's account and the visual evidence and why they set up a collapse zone around noon when fires where not even reported officially before around 2pm.
I think, at the very least, we can agree that 9/11 was a new type of event. Never before had fully loaded jets slammed into two of the largest buildings in the world and never into buildings designed the way the WTC was designed. Are we so arrogant as a species now to think that we know everything about what would happen in a situation that we've never dealt with before?

But they were built to specifications and obey the laws of physics and that is why we built them and continue to build them... because they are not supposed to collapse. If it is unclear why they collapsed, how can people design ones that will not collapse? We need to know.
 
it came from fundraising', is not "great information".

It answers the question of where the fundraising came from. Since it answers a question, it is great information. Why can't you admit you are wrong?

And how would he have known that at the time? That type of knowledge can only be established forensically and after examining "all" known possibilities. Why do you think it took so long for NIST to come up with reports. Reports which were erroneous and had to be seriously amended. Why do all that when 'Nigro knew what happened' before it even happened.

Because they assessed the damage. Considering a large section of the building was scooped out and eyewitness accounts of fires on almost every floor, Nigro, on his own accord made the decision to abandon the building and establish the collapse zone. They were privy to information that day that you nor I were privy too.

He may well be a liar. He wouldn't be the first or last official to lie because he was told to. I do not know and all I am saying is there is enough contradictory evidence from witnesses and video evidence to make his account highly implausible.

You are calling the Chief of the Fire Department of New York a liar. Why not go down to Ten House and call them liars to their faces, too? Man up, son.

So why was the collapse zone established at 12 noon before fires were even officially acknowledged?

It was actually established at 2:30 PM. More reading comprehension!

No, you are defending the OS by only acknowledging credibility to those who have official backing. That they are in the majority is neither here nor there when you consider that as soon as any one of them dissents or whistle blows, they lose their jobs, their professional standing and are vilified, gagged and often imprisoned.

I'm actually acknowledging credibility by those who were there. I'm going with the word of the FDNY. Guys who, without question, ran towards death to make sure they saved as many people as possible. What you're doing is painting this picture that you know more than people who were actually there because you have some pictures and cleverly constructed YouTube videos.

That is your opinion but I assure you it is not what most people who challenge the OS 'want'. It is a very difficult thing to even contemplate that 'the world is not how it is presented'. I therefore understand your resistance to questioning the OS.

If you want to pretend invisible black helicopters are following your every move, then who am I to tell you otherwise? Have fun.

You are right that nothing is 100% but surely you can acknowledge there are gaping holes and huge anomalies that at the very least should be properly investigated.

Considering 9/11 is the most researched and investigated event in human history, what else do you want? Don't you think if the movement had any credible points that couldn't be debunked with a simple Google search, that they'd have more traction?

Try focussing in on two little things that I mentioned. The inconsistency with Nigro's account and the visual evidence and why they set up a collapse zone around noon when fires where not even reported officially before around 2pm.

Again, they didn't establish the collapse zone at noon. How am I supposed to debate you seriously when you can't even get details correct?

But they were built to specifications and obey the laws of physics and that is why we built them and continue to build them... because they are not supposed to collapse. If it is unclear why they collapsed, how can people design ones that will not collapse? We need to know.

The building did what it was designed to do; withstand the impact of an airplane. If it was just an airplane crash and no fire, then it probably would have been fine. If it was designed to withstand fire? Maybe it would have been fine, too. But withstanding both? Nope.
 
There plenty in other posts on the site it still is sketchy and debatable that it would have came down and no explanation for the uniform simultaneous collapse that allowed freefall speeds. They will tell you there Is but just read the posts they just ignore relevant info and slam anyone who doesn't take There side. The facts are there for certain aspects which is great. But other relevant info is claimed to be hogwash or debunked
 
I'm still confused about how a collapse could happen at anything other than near free-fall speeds?? :confused:
 
I'm still confused about how a collapse could happen at anything other than near free-fall speeds?? :confused:

As confused as me when people say it was a controlled demolition. Where are the loud noises of the charges going off? Where are the flashes of light? Where is the evidence of CD equipment used? etc. etc. etc. etc.
 
It's all been covered in the wtc7 postings guys ur just uninformed right now go thru that post. Although I don't thing the thermite thing has been done over I'm not sure in that case there would be no demolition noises of any kind it would be quiet you can see demonstrations on YouTube
 
It's all been covered in the wtc7 postings guys ur just uninformed right now go thru that post. Although I don't thing the thermite thing has been done over I'm not sure in that case there would be no demolition noises of any kind it would be quiet you can see demonstrations on YouTube

1. Please work on your grammar. We try to keep a professional decorum here.
2. Please provide proof that thermite was used in WTC7.
 
Referring to posts you haven't read so please read the posts referring to wtc7. You didn't even properly read what I posted when you do and process it then you will understand.
 
Referring to posts you haven't read so please read the posts referring to wtc7. You didn't even properly read what I posted when you do and process it then you will understand.

Can you please quote the posts you're referring to this thread? The burden of proof is on you; it's not up to me to go find it.
 
Was comparing the previous post when referring to thermite and saying it hasn't been discussed from what I have seen on the site. And the questions are being discussed on the wtc7 section.
Thought I would break it down for you since you read and quoted a post already I'm assuming nothing more would come from you reading it again.
 
And it is up to you if your the one that doesn't know... This isn't high school go find the info brosef

If thermite in WTC7 hasn't been discussed, then start the topic. If you have no evidence to support your claims, then stop making the claim.

And when you do make the claim, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You are the one who must provide the quotes and evidence; it's not up to me to go find your proof for you, brosef.
 
Then again that which is asserted without evidence can also be denied without evidence.

so:
"WTC was deliberately demolished!"

"No it wasn't."

=assertion + complete answer :)
 
Then again that which is asserted without evidence can also be denied without evidence.

so:
"WTC was deliberately demolished!"

"No it wasn't."

=assertion + complete answer :)

All I'm asking for is evidence to back up the claim. I don't think I'm outright refusing his theory without asking for a reasonable amount of evidence.
 
I made the mistake of getting involved on a 9/11 truther page on 9/11 and found it's a pointless debate as I just kept getting claims thrown at me about free fall, thermit, CD, missing gold, and continually being told no normal person argues about things like this, how much are they paying me.
 
1. Please work on your grammar. We try to keep a professional decorum here.
2. Please provide proof that thermite was used in WTC7.
I suggest you read the posting guidelines. Who do you think you are; telling people to work on their grammar? Mind your manners and stop being so insulting.

Also there is a huge difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'.
 
Last edited:
It answers the question of where the fundraising came from. Since it answers a question, it is great information. Why can't you admit you are wrong?
Because they assessed the damage. Considering a large section of the building was scooped out and eyewitness accounts of fires on almost every floor, Nigro, on his own accord made the decision to abandon the building and establish the collapse zone. They were privy to information that day that you nor I were privy too.
You are calling the Chief of the Fire Department of New York a liar. Why not go down to Ten House and call them liars to their faces, too? Man up, son.
It was actually established at 2:30 PM. More reading comprehension!
I'm actually acknowledging credibility by those who were there. I'm going with the word of the FDNY. Guys who, without question, ran towards death to make sure they saved as many people as possible. What you're doing is painting this picture that you know more than people who were actually there because you have some pictures and cleverly constructed YouTube videos.
If you want to pretend invisible black helicopters are following your every move, then who am I to tell you otherwise? Have fun.
Considering 9/11 is the most researched and investigated event in human history, what else do you want? Don't you think if the movement had any credible points that couldn't be debunked with a simple Google search, that they'd have more traction?
Again, they didn't establish the collapse zone at noon. How am I supposed to debate you seriously when you can't even get details correct?
The building did what it was designed to do; withstand the impact of an airplane. If it was just an airplane crash and no fire, then it probably would have been fine. If it was designed to withstand fire? Maybe it would have been fine, too. But withstanding both? Nope.
Firstly, I am not your son... so cut out the inaccurate, cocky little epithets from behind your keyboard, which although obviously intended to be demeaning, simply reflect badly on you.

As for the rest of your post... I think it is great. Keep up the good work as it shows the calibre of logical argument and lack of knowledge that many purveyors of the OS aspire to. Having said that I think you would likely be better suited to posting on YT comments for now, rather than entering into more mature debates before you are ready but if you insist on continuing here I suggest you start thinking about what you are going to say and how it reflects on you, before posting.

Similarly, I suggest it reflects equally badly on those foolish enough to 'like' such posts.
 
Last edited:
I'm still confused about how a collapse could happen at anything other than near free-fall speeds?? :confused:
I can believe that.

Most people find it strange though, simply on the basis that it has never happened to a high rise steel framed building before 9/11 and then it happened to 3 all in the same day. Not partial collapses but 3 total collapses. Now many experts were also confused, which is why vast amounts of time and energy have since been expended trying to rationalise it. Also it has never happened since. Still confused... not surprised.
 
People who bring up the use of thermite don't understand how thermite works. Thermite doesn't attach to an object and then eat away at it. It ignites, burns, and gravity does the rest. Basically if you put thermite on a vertical girder, the thermite won't eat across the vertical girder. It will melt the surface it was attached to, and then fall and eat through the concrete floor next to the beam. The substance is just not that controllable. You have to let it settle on a horizontal surface. Otherwise it just eats its way downwards. Also how exactly did this supposed team of crack demolitionists reach all these beams? You would probably have to break open walls and other messy things which are hard to mask.
 
I can believe that.

Most people find it strange though, simply on the basis that it has never happened to a high rise steel framed building before 9/11 and then it happened to 3 all in the same day. Not partial collapses but 3 total collapses. Now many experts were also confused, which is why vast amounts of time and energy have since been expended trying to rationalise it. Also it has never happened since. Still confused... not surprised.

WTC7 was the only thing that really "confused" people. It was not thought at the time that a fire would bring down a building so quickly. Now the situation is a lot better understood.

Nigro's statements, of course, were based on actual observations of the building during the course of the fires, combined with what they had just observed in WTC 1/2
 
As to the noon establishment of a collapse zone

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/14703
Audio of Indira Singh's account. Talks of collapse zone about 10 mins in. First hand account of an EMT worker on 9/11 and the aftermath. Fires burning for months, pollution and safety assurances and much more.

" pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. .."

1) Fire Chief Frank Fellini:
So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down."


So that is from 12 midday.

http://911blogger.com/node/6195

WITNESSES WHO WERE WARNED OF THE IMPENDING COLLAPSE

1) Firefighter Thomas Smith: "They backed me off the rig because seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down." (Interview, 12/6/2001)

2) Firefighter Vincent Massa: "At this point Seven World Trade Center was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. ... I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down, they kept backing us up Vesey, almost like a full block. They were concerned about seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up." (Interview, 12/4/2001)

3) Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy: "Then, like I said, building seven was in eminent collapse. They blew the horns. They said everyone clear the area until we got that last civilian out. We tried to give another quick search while we could, but then they wouldn't let us stay anymore. So we cleared the area. ... So yeah, then we just stayed on Vesey until building seven came down." (Interview, 12/30/2001)

4) Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT: "What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. ... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down. ... There was another panic around four o'clock because they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running." (KPFA, 4/27/2005)

5) EMT Joseph Fortis: "When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back. They pulled us all back at the time, almost about an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe." (Interview, 11/9/2001)

6) Fire Chief Thomas McCarthy: "So when I get to the command post, they just had a flood of guys standing there. They were just waiting for 7 to come down. ... I made it down Vesey Street to just in front of the overpass of 7 World Trade. People were saying don't stand under there, it's going to come down. ... So at that point we were a little leery about how the bridge was tied in, so no one was really going onto it, and then they were also saying 7 was going to come down. They chased everyone off the block." (Interview, 10/11/2001)

7) Firefighter Matthew Long: "And at that point they were worried that 7 was coming down so they were calling for everyone to back out. ... Because they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately. I think we probably got out of that rubble and 18 minutes later is when 7 came down." (Interview, 10/9/2001)

8) Firefighter Edward Kennedy: "That was the only Mayday that I remember, and to tell you the truth, the only guy that really stands out in my mind that I remember being on the radio was Chief Visconti. ... I remember him screaming about 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you're away from it, that's an order, you know, stuff like that." (Interview, 1/17/2002)

9) Paramedic Louis Cook: "We got to Chambers and Greenwich, and the chief turns around and says, '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 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.' ... We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake." (Interview, 10/17/2001)

10) Battalion Fire Chief John Norman: "After we found Chief Ganci, in addition to recon, I was detailed to make sure the collapse zone for 7 WTC had been set up and was being maintained. The sector commanders were trying to clear out of that area. We expected it to fall to the south, into the areas we were searching." (John Norman, "Search and Rescue Operations," Fire Engineering, 10/2002)

John Norman (in another account): "Now we're still worried about 7. We have guys trying to make their way up into the pile, and they're telling us that 7 is going to fall down - and that was one of the directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot radius from that building." ("WTC: This Is Their Story," Firehouse, 5/2002)

11) Deputy Fire Chief Nick Visconti: "Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they're not trying to put this fire out? ... At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you've got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there. ... There were a couple of chiefs out there who I knew and I called them individually. I said to them, listen, start backing those people out, we need them back up to the command post. While this was going on, I saw individual company officers. I was whistling, Captain, bring your guys this way. I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we've still got people here, we don't want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn't want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance." ("WTC: This Is Their Story," Firehouse, 8/2002)

12) Firefighter James Wallace: "They were saying building seven was going to collapse, so we regrouped and went back to our rig. We went to building four or three; I don't know. We were going to set up our tower ladder there. They said no good because building seven is coming down." (Interview, 12/29/2001)

13) Fire Captain Robert Sohmer: "As the day went on they started worrying about 7 World Trade Center collapsing and they ordered an evacuation from that area so at that time, we left the area with the other companies, went back to the command post on Broadway ... We were about to proceed our operation there and this was in the afternoon, I would say approximately maybe 2:00 roughly, where we started to operate and then they asked us to fall back again due to the potential of 7 World Trade Center collapsing." (Interview, 1/17/2002)

14) Fire Lieutenant William Ryan: "Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we've got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. ... So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that's when 7 collapsed." (Interview, 10/18/2001)

15) Fire Captain Brenda Berkman: "We no sooner got going on something there when a chief came along and said, 'Everybody's got to leave the area. We're afraid that Seven World Trade is going to fall down.' 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." (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

FireWork newsletter (adding to Berkman's account): "After being ordered back because of the fear that yet another building was about to collapse (7 World Trade Center, 40+ stories), Brenda [Berkman] and her crew went to find other firefighters who might have some tools or a radio. ... That afternoon, 7 World Trade Center came down. 'We had cleared an enormous collapse zone for that, and it still wasn't big enough. When the thing came down, the rubble and the dust came across the West Side Highway, over and past the rubble from the towers that was there.'" (Linda Willing, "Report from Ground Zero: The World Trade Center Collapse," FireWork, 9/2001)

16) Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman: "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." (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)

17) Firefighter Pete Castellano: "We were ordered down from the tower ladder because of a possible collapse at Tower 7." (Interview, 12/28/2001)

18) Firefighter Brian Fitzpatrick: "We were then positioned on Vesey Street between North End and the West Side Highway because there was an imminent collapse on 7 World Trade, and it did collapse." (Interview, 12/6/2001)

19) Firefighter Christopher Patrick Murray: "Probably about 4:00 o'clock, 5:00 o'clock, our radios went dead, because we heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down and I think at 5:30 that came down." (Interview, 12/12/2001)

20) Firefighter Kevin McGovern: "Actually I think at that point just as we were leaving, guys -- I don't know who it was. I guess it was a chief was saying clear the area, because they were worried about number Seven World Trade Center coming down and burying guys who were digging. So we basically went back to the rig, because they were clearing that area out. It took about three hours for Seven World Trade Center to actually come down." (Interview, 12/11/2001)

21) Firefighter George Holzman: "We stayed there for quite sometime when I don't even know who, I think it was someone, Lieutenant Lowney spoke to, asked us to leave the area, they were concerned about 7 World Trade Center collapsing." (Interview, 1/17/2002)

22) Byron Pitts, CBS News correspondent: "About an hour ago, World Trade Center building number 7 collapsed. ... It was the one calamity that was not a surprise. Police had evacuated the area hours ago, fearful building number 7 would indeed fall down." (CBS News, 9/11/2001)

23) Kansas City Star: "About 4:30 p.m., word went out to evacuate the area. Officials were worried that Building 7 of the Trade Center complex would collapse." (David Hayes, "Amid despair, photographer's work brought hope," Kansas City Star, 3/28/2004)

24) Tom Franklin, photographer: "It was about 4 p.m., and they were anticipating Seven World Trade Center collapsing. The firemen were leaving en masse." (Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, p. 204)

Tom Franklin (in another account): "It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall." (Tom Franklin, "The After-Life of a Photo that Touched a Nation," Columbia Journalism Review, 3/1/2002)

25) Mark Jacobson, reporter, New York Magazine: "Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. ... 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." (Mark Jacobson, "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll," New York Magazine, 3/27/2006)

26) Paramedic Joseph Cahill: "The reason we were given for why we were moving was that 7 World Trade Center was going to collapse or was at risk of collapsing. So we must have been somewhere in this area where we would have had a problem with that. ... They wanted us to move the treatment sector because of 7 World Trade Center was imminently to collapse, which, of course, it did." (Interview, 10/15/2001)

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

28) Christine Haughney, reporter, Washington Post: "Then a policeman directed me north. The Solomon Smith Barney building--Building Seven--was about to collapse." (Chris Bull and Sam Erman, At Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)

29) Peter DeMarco, reporter, New York Daily News: "Seven or eight blocks down Greenwich Street, the No. 7 World Trade building, a smaller, forty-story structure, was on fire. The street was closed; the building was going to collapse." (Chris Bull and Sam Erman, At Ground Zero, 2002, p. 97)

30) Fire Chief Joseph Pfeifer: "Yes, I watched 7. At one point, we were standing on the west side of West Street and Vesey. And I remember Chief Nigro coming back at that point saying I don't want anybody else killed and to take everybody two blocks up virtually to North End and Vesey, which is a good ways up. And we stood there and we watched 7 collapse." ("WTC: This Is Their Story," Firehouse, 4/2002)

31) Battalion Fire Chief Frank Congiusta: "While we were searching the subbasements, they decided that Seven World Trade Center, which was across the street, was going to collapse. So they called us out. ...When I came out, they were calling us on the radio to tell us to get out. Then I reported that the search was negative, and then they wouldn't let anybody near the site pretty much, because Seven World Trade Center was going to come down." (Interview, 1/8/2002)

32) EMT Jason Charles: "So we started heading over to where Building 7 was at and they were like Building 7 is going to collapse, you can't go over there, this and that, and there was another building that they thought was going to collapse that was like right behind the triage center, the building that we were in." (Interview, 1/23/2002)

33) Fire Lieutenant Roy David: "At Pace University we had -- we set up -- I'm sorry, we set up in that lobby of that building, the lobby and the actual whole first floor. There was a threat of collapse of building number seven, so 225, we had to evacuate it." (Interview, 10/12/2001)

34) EMT Decosta Wright: "They said -- we were like, are you guys going to put that fire out? I was like, you know, they are going to wait for it to burn down and it collapsed. ... Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand. ... 5 blocks. 5 blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on point, the cloud just stopped right there. Then when that building was coming down, the same thing, that same rumbling." (Interview, 10/11/2001)

35) Fire Lieutenant Rudolf Weindler: "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." (Interview, 1/15/2002)

36) Liz Gonzalez, reporter, Telemundo/Channel 47: "They started evacuating the area because they thought a third building was going to go down. We decided to stay. We saw the third building crash." (Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, p. 209)

37) Sara Kugler, reporter, the Associated Press: "I saw hundreds of firefighters leaning against buildings, sitting on trucks, eating fruit and water that the Red Cross was handing out. 'Where are all the injured?' I asked. 'They are not letting us in. It's not stable,' said the firefighters. ... All of a sudden Seven World Trade Center started to collapse." (Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, p. 210)



WITNESSES WHO APPARENTLY KNEW IN ADVANCE OF THE COLLAPSE

1) Fire Chief Frank Fellini: "The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. ... We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down." (Interview, 12/3/2001)

2) Fire Chief Daniel Nigro: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." (Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering,9/2002)

Daniel Nigro (in another account): "I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely." (Interview, 10/24/2001)

3) Fire Chief Frank Cruthers: "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area ... be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it." (Interview, 10/31/2001)

Frank Cruthers (in another account): "Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been comprised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy." (Frank Cruthers, "Postcollapse Command," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

4) Fire Captain Ray Goldbach: "There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse. ... Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way." (Interview, 10/24/2001)

5) Fire Engineering magazine: "FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire--the other two had collapsed earlier that day." ("World Trade Center Disaster: Initial Response," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
It's interesting that Truthers view those quotes as evidence for controlled demolition. Shows how preconceptions can skew perception.
 
It's interesting that Truthers view those quotes as evidence for controlled demolition. Shows how preconceptions can skew perception.
If you notice Mick, "orders came from the top" but the firefighters on the ground wanted to stay.

There were a couple of chiefs out there who I knew and I called them individually. I said to them, listen, start backing those people out, we need them back up to the command post. While this was going on, I saw individual company officers. I was whistling, Captain, bring your guys this way. I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we've still got people here, we don't want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn't want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance." ("WTC: This Is Their Story," Firehouse, 8/2002)

15) Fire Captain Brenda Berkman: "We no sooner got going on something there when a chief came along and said, 'Everybody's got to leave the area. We're afraid that Seven World Trade is going to fall down.' 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."

Which we know is patently untrue because even NIST say the damage was minimal.

Also it is often poo pooed that 'Well the only way the building could fall is straight down and not chaotically' but here is a professional who thought very differently and notice he says 'we'.

We expected it to fall to the south, into the areas we were searching." (John Norman, "Search and Rescue Operations," Fire Engineering, 10/2002)
 
"We expected it to fall to the south, into the areas we were searching." does not mean he expected it to topple over like a tree.

And of course it DID fall over to the south:
 
Last edited:
It's interesting that Truthers view those quotes as evidence for controlled demolition. Shows how preconceptions can skew perception.

They view them as they want to view them. Conspiracy theorists start with a conclusion and try to build around it, rather than end with the conclusion after looking at facts.
 
"We expected it to fall to the south, into the areas we were searching." does not mean he expected it to topple over like a tree.

Surely that is speculation. In reality, it should be taken at face value rather than 'interpreted'.

And of course it DID fall over to the south:

Is that an attempt to have it all ways? ;)

He didn't say "We expected it to fall straight down until the last second and then to the south, into the areas we were searching."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It fell as shown in the image above. It tilted a bit towards the south. Perhaps not as much as they thought, but how would they know?
 
WITNESSES WHO WERE WARNED OF THE IMPENDING COLLAPSE

1) Firefighter Thomas Smith: "They backed me off the rig because seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down." (Interview, 12/6/2001)

2) Firefighter Vincent Massa: "At this point Seven World Trade Center was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. ... I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down, they kept backing us up Vesey, almost like a full block. They were concerned about seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up." (Interview, 12/4/2001)

3) Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy: "Then, like I said, building seven was in eminent collapse. They blew the horns. They said everyone clear the area until we got that last civilian out. We tried to give another quick search while we could, but then they wouldn't let us stay anymore. So we cleared the area. ... So yeah, then we just stayed on Vesey until building seven came down." (Interview, 12/30/2001)

4) Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT: "What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. ... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down. ... There was another panic around four o'clock because they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running." (KPFA, 4/27/2005)

5) EMT Joseph Fortis: "When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back. They pulled us all back at the time, almost about an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe." (Interview, 11/9/2001)

6) Fire Chief Thomas McCarthy: "So when I get to the command post, they just had a flood of guys standing there. They were just waiting for 7 to come down. ... I made it down Vesey Street to just in front of the overpass of 7 World Trade. People were saying don't stand under there, it's going to come down. ... So at that point we were a little leery about how the bridge was tied in, so no one was really going onto it, and then they were also saying 7 was going to come down. They chased everyone off the block." (Interview, 10/11/2001)

7) Firefighter Matthew Long: "And at that point they were worried that 7 was coming down so they were calling for everyone to back out. ... Because they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately. I think we probably got out of that rubble and 18 minutes later is when 7 came down." (Interview, 10/9/2001)

8) Firefighter Edward Kennedy: "That was the only Mayday that I remember, and to tell you the truth, the only guy that really stands out in my mind that I remember being on the radio was Chief Visconti. ... I remember him screaming about 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you're away from it, that's an order, you know, stuff like that." (Interview, 1/17/2002)

9) Paramedic Louis Cook: "We got to Chambers and Greenwich, and the chief turns around and says, '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 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.' ... We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake." (Interview, 10/17/2001)

10) Battalion Fire Chief John Norman: "After we found Chief Ganci, in addition to recon, I was detailed to make sure the collapse zone for 7 WTC had been set up and was being maintained. The sector commanders were trying to clear out of that area. We expected it to fall to the south, into the areas we were searching." (John Norman, "Search and Rescue Operations," Fire Engineering, 10/2002)

John Norman (in another account): "Now we're still worried about 7. We have guys trying to make their way up into the pile, and they're telling us that 7 is going to fall down - and that was one of the directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot radius from that building." ("WTC: This Is Their Story," Firehouse, 5/2002)

11) Deputy Fire Chief Nick Visconti: "Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they're not trying to put this fire out? ... At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you've got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there. ... There were a couple of chiefs out there who I knew and I called them individually. I said to them, listen, start backing those people out, we need them back up to the command post. While this was going on, I saw individual company officers. I was whistling, Captain, bring your guys this way. I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we've still got people here, we don't want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn't want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance." ("WTC: This Is Their Story," Firehouse, 8/2002)

12) Firefighter James Wallace: "They were saying building seven was going to collapse, so we regrouped and went back to our rig. We went to building four or three; I don't know. We were going to set up our tower ladder there. They said no good because building seven is coming down." (Interview, 12/29/2001)

13) Fire Captain Robert Sohmer: "As the day went on they started worrying about 7 World Trade Center collapsing and they ordered an evacuation from that area so at that time, we left the area with the other companies, went back to the command post on Broadway ... We were about to proceed our operation there and this was in the afternoon, I would say approximately maybe 2:00 roughly, where we started to operate and then they asked us to fall back again due to the potential of 7 World Trade Center collapsing." (Interview, 1/17/2002)

14) Fire Lieutenant William Ryan: "Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we've got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. ... So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that's when 7 collapsed." (Interview, 10/18/2001)

15) Fire Captain Brenda Berkman: "We no sooner got going on something there when a chief came along and said, 'Everybody's got to leave the area. We're afraid that Seven World Trade is going to fall down.' 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." (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

FireWork newsletter (adding to Berkman's account): "After being ordered back because of the fear that yet another building was about to collapse (7 World Trade Center, 40+ stories), Brenda [Berkman] and her crew went to find other firefighters who might have some tools or a radio. ... That afternoon, 7 World Trade Center came down. 'We had cleared an enormous collapse zone for that, and it still wasn't big enough. When the thing came down, the rubble and the dust came across the West Side Highway, over and past the rubble from the towers that was there.'" (Linda Willing, "Report from Ground Zero: The World Trade Center Collapse," FireWork, 9/2001)

16) Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman: "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." (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)

17) Firefighter Pete Castellano: "We were ordered down from the tower ladder because of a possible collapse at Tower 7." (Interview, 12/28/2001)

18) Firefighter Brian Fitzpatrick: "We were then positioned on Vesey Street between North End and the West Side Highway because there was an imminent collapse on 7 World Trade, and it did collapse." (Interview, 12/6/2001)

19) Firefighter Christopher Patrick Murray: "Probably about 4:00 o'clock, 5:00 o'clock, our radios went dead, because we heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down and I think at 5:30 that came down." (Interview, 12/12/2001)

20) Firefighter Kevin McGovern: "Actually I think at that point just as we were leaving, guys -- I don't know who it was. I guess it was a chief was saying clear the area, because they were worried about number Seven World Trade Center coming down and burying guys who were digging. So we basically went back to the rig, because they were clearing that area out. It took about three hours for Seven World Trade Center to actually come down." (Interview, 12/11/2001)

21) Firefighter George Holzman: "We stayed there for quite sometime when I don't even know who, I think it was someone, Lieutenant Lowney spoke to, asked us to leave the area, they were concerned about 7 World Trade Center collapsing." (Interview, 1/17/2002)

22) Byron Pitts, CBS News correspondent: "About an hour ago, World Trade Center building number 7 collapsed. ... It was the one calamity that was not a surprise. Police had evacuated the area hours ago, fearful building number 7 would indeed fall down." (CBS News, 9/11/2001)

23) Kansas City Star: "About 4:30 p.m., word went out to evacuate the area. Officials were worried that Building 7 of the Trade Center complex would collapse." (David Hayes, "Amid despair, photographer's work brought hope," Kansas City Star, 3/28/2004)

24) Tom Franklin, photographer: "It was about 4 p.m., and they were anticipating Seven World Trade Center collapsing. The firemen were leaving en masse." (Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, p. 204)

Tom Franklin (in another account): "It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall." (Tom Franklin, "The After-Life of a Photo that Touched a Nation," Columbia Journalism Review, 3/1/2002)

25) Mark Jacobson, reporter, New York Magazine: "Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. ... 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." (Mark Jacobson, "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll," New York Magazine, 3/27/2006)

26) Paramedic Joseph Cahill: "The reason we were given for why we were moving was that 7 World Trade Center was going to collapse or was at risk of collapsing. So we must have been somewhere in this area where we would have had a problem with that. ... They wanted us to move the treatment sector because of 7 World Trade Center was imminently to collapse, which, of course, it did." (Interview, 10/15/2001)

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

28) Christine Haughney, reporter, Washington Post: "Then a policeman directed me north. The Solomon Smith Barney building--Building Seven--was about to collapse." (Chris Bull and Sam Erman, At Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)

29) Peter DeMarco, reporter, New York Daily News: "Seven or eight blocks down Greenwich Street, the No. 7 World Trade building, a smaller, forty-story structure, was on fire. The street was closed; the building was going to collapse." (Chris Bull and Sam Erman, At Ground Zero, 2002, p. 97)

30) Fire Chief Joseph Pfeifer: "Yes, I watched 7. At one point, we were standing on the west side of West Street and Vesey. And I remember Chief Nigro coming back at that point saying I don't want anybody else killed and to take everybody two blocks up virtually to North End and Vesey, which is a good ways up. And we stood there and we watched 7 collapse." ("WTC: This Is Their Story," Firehouse, 4/2002)

31) Battalion Fire Chief Frank Congiusta: "While we were searching the subbasements, they decided that Seven World Trade Center, which was across the street, was going to collapse. So they called us out. ...When I came out, they were calling us on the radio to tell us to get out. Then I reported that the search was negative, and then they wouldn't let anybody near the site pretty much, because Seven World Trade Center was going to come down." (Interview, 1/8/2002)

32) EMT Jason Charles: "So we started heading over to where Building 7 was at and they were like Building 7 is going to collapse, you can't go over there, this and that, and there was another building that they thought was going to collapse that was like right behind the triage center, the building that we were in." (Interview, 1/23/2002)

33) Fire Lieutenant Roy David: "At Pace University we had -- we set up -- I'm sorry, we set up in that lobby of that building, the lobby and the actual whole first floor. There was a threat of collapse of building number seven, so 225, we had to evacuate it." (Interview, 10/12/2001)

34) EMT Decosta Wright: "They said -- we were like, are you guys going to put that fire out? I was like, you know, they are going to wait for it to burn down and it collapsed. ... Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand. ... 5 blocks. 5 blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on point, the cloud just stopped right there. Then when that building was coming down, the same thing, that same rumbling." (Interview, 10/11/2001)

35) Fire Lieutenant Rudolf Weindler: "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." (Interview, 1/15/2002)

36) Liz Gonzalez, reporter, Telemundo/Channel 47: "They started evacuating the area because they thought a third building was going to go down. We decided to stay. We saw the third building crash." (Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, p. 209)

37) Sara Kugler, reporter, the Associated Press: "I saw hundreds of firefighters leaning against buildings, sitting on trucks, eating fruit and water that the Red Cross was handing out. 'Where are all the injured?' I asked. 'They are not letting us in. It's not stable,' said the firefighters. ... All of a sudden Seven World Trade Center started to collapse." (Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, p. 210)



WITNESSES WHO APPARENTLY KNEW IN ADVANCE OF THE COLLAPSE

1) Fire Chief Frank Fellini: "The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. ... We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down." (Interview, 12/3/2001)

2) Fire Chief Daniel Nigro: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." (Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering,9/2002)

Daniel Nigro (in another account): "I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely." (Interview, 10/24/2001)

3) Fire Chief Frank Cruthers: "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area ... be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it." (Interview, 10/31/2001)

Frank Cruthers (in another account): "Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been comprised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy." (Frank Cruthers, "Postcollapse Command," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

4) Fire Captain Ray Goldbach: "There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse. ... Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way." (Interview, 10/24/2001)

5) Fire Engineering magazine: "FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire--the other two had collapsed earlier that day." ("World Trade Center Disaster: Initial Response," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)
Content from External Source

I'm still confused as to what these quotes are trying to prove for your side. Are you implying the FDNY was "in" on it?
 
I'm still confused as to what these quotes are trying to prove for your side.
I'll try to clarify. As I said before "orders came from the top" but the firefighters on the ground wanted to stay." That shows a discrepancy between how the firefighters on the ground viewed the situation and how the 'fire chiefs' viewed the situation.

The common thing was, hey, we've still got people here, we don't want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn't want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out?
Content from External Source
I don't know who it was. I guess it was a chief was saying clear the area
Content from External Source
Are you implying the FDNY was "in" on it?

When you are talking about the actions of the FDNY, you are talking about a command structure. The rank and file firefighters will usually do as they are commanded, even when they disagree or are unhappy about it... much the same as troops are conditioned to follow orders. So when you are asking if I am implying the FDNY 'was in on it', that is a loaded and irrelevant question. If they are told to fall back, they are unhappy about doing so but do it anyway, 'they' cannot be in on anything, they are simply doing their level best to do their job at great risk to themselves. So let me be clear, I have nothing but admiration and respect for the firemen and all the first responders who gave their lives or put themselves in danger or suffered injury or long term health problems as a result.

Now to the issuers of the orders... the fire chiefs and in particular (as per thread), Chief Nigro's statements. I do not know whether he is telling the truth or not other than by looking for corroborating evidence but apparently he said:

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.
Here he is conflating 7 with 1&2. Whether or not 1&2 should have collapsed as they did is the topic of numerous threads so we should disregard that. 7 collapsed due to office fires and it is suggested by the NIST simulation that it collapsed more uniformly than it would otherwise have done, because of the damage to the south face. NIST state the damage to the south face was not the reason for the collapse and also state that minimal damage to fire insulation occurred.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
This is not in contention by anyone.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
So is he saying this was a reason for the expectation of a collapse... (bad design)?
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.
This is arguably true although it could be argued that fire fighting was taking place, (particularly on buildings which were burning much more fiercely than 7) but was pretty ineffective due to low water pressure.

It could also be argued, (and so far this issue hasn't been raised on this forum), that water could have been pumped at great pressure by by fire tender boats, possibly to the fire engines but more importantly to the water risers in 7 which would then have enabled the sprinkler system to douse the fires. Fire riser inlets were on the outside of the building and accessible.

As for the quotes:
FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly - "Then we had to move because the Duane Rease, they said, wasn't safe because building seven was really roaring."
A quote saying 'someone said', 7 was roaring. But the Pictorial evidence and NIST report refer to normal office fires, 'moving around the building'.
Firefighter Marcel Klaes "All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn."
NIST record first official sightings of fires from around 2pm.

FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco - "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."
That is flat out against all evidence.

Firefighter Vincent Massa - "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."
Because they had been told to expect the collapse.

FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn - "...Just went you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved with flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down."

I posted some footage of a camera crew walking around and in the foyer of 7 up to about half an hour before it collapsed. they were totally unconcerned. The fires were localised and normal. There were no unusual creaking sounds that I could here and they certainly did not mention any
 
From the south WTC7 looked like it was on fire on nearly all floors.





How do you know what time the video was at?
 
Last edited:
From the south WTC7 looked like it was on fire on nearly all floors.




How do you know what time the video was at?
So where is the fire? Fire chiefs know the difference between smoke and fire, as do most people, (apparently not all though :()

From about 1 min in this shows the extent of the fires in 7



Badly titled as just before collapse but certainly well after WTC1 collapsed so probably after 11- 11.30 am.



This video has some debunker stuff prefacing it which states the video shows how badly 7 is damaged and how bad the fires were and well basically it is no wonder it fell down.

Judge for yourself but it doesn't look anything like 'fully involved or creaking' to me.

This is half an hour before the collapse and I know this because I posted a video of this reporter, reporting that he left 7 less than half an hour before the collapse.
Also you can clearly see that the smoke is the cumulative smoke from all the fires in the building funnelled by the prevailing wind and draught.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll try to clarify. As I said before "orders came from the top" but the firefighters on the ground wanted to stay." That shows a discrepancy between how the firefighters on the ground viewed the situation and how the 'fire chiefs' viewed the situation.

That's why they have chiefs.
 
I can believe that.

Most people find it strange though, simply on the basis that it has never happened to a high rise steel framed building before 9/11 and then it happened to 3 all in the same day. Not partial collapses but 3 total collapses. Now many experts were also confused, which is why vast amounts of time and energy have since been expended trying to rationalise it. Also it has never happened since. Still confused... not surprised.

I think you miss my point - why would anything ever collapse at anything OTHER THAN "near free-fall speed"?

"Near free fall speed" is often punted up as evidence that "it must have been a demolition". However this presupposes that somehow a non-demolition collapse is appreciably slower - why would that be the case?
 
I think you miss my point - why would anything ever collapse at anything OTHER THAN "near free-fall speed"?

"Near free fall speed" is often punted up as evidence that "it must have been a demolition". However this presupposes that somehow a non-demolition collapse is appreciably slower - why would that be the case?
That is pretty well discussed in another thread to be honest and it does seem a bit off topic.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wtc-rate-of-fall-rate-of-crush.1142/

However, I would ask if you have any examples of a steel framed high rise building which collapsed at freefall acceleration, which were not intentionally demolished or otherwise 'blown up' in some way, i.e. collapsed by fire?

I am personally unaware of any such examples and would be interested to see them if you have.

There are very few examples of partial collapse but these do not seem to be comparable due to starkly different circumstances, (not least that they were only partial).

But history both pre and after 9/11 shows us that fire, even far more intensive and far longer duration, results in a collapse speed of 0 feet per second, i.e. they do not collapse.

The latest example I believe being:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...per-engulfed-in-flames-does-not-collapse.html

Tamweel Building was added to the long list of skyscrapers that have withstood major fires. This stark contrast to the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7, the only steel framed skyscrapers in history, whose… complete collapses have been officially blamed on fire, is causing more people to question the official 9/11 story.
Content from External Source


Perhaps TPTB should build a steel framed building that will collapse and then set fire to it and then they will be able to say 'We told you so'. But that's just rambling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's why they have chiefs.
So the story rests on the evidence of one man, who if he did not say what he was told to say would face the full wrath of the Bush administration and who's career and life would be shattered by the repercussions?

Also, although by no means conclusive, Chief Nigro's statement is somewhat contradicted by Silverstein's statement:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. And I said, “You know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is… is pull it.” Er… and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.
 
Last edited:
The explanation I typically hear for this is 'falling elevators', but that's nonsense.

Why is it nonsense?

from an elevator mechanic in the WTC on 9.11.01:

http://www.thrnewmedia.com/adayinseptember/jones.htm


What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber.
It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.
I’m looking from the lobby up to a mezzanine area or the second floor where they lined up all the people to go up to the rooftop, and I’m looking up expecting something, building parts to be coming down, because I wasn’t quite sure what that noise was.

But I found out later, when the plane came through the building, it cut the hoist ropes, the governor ropes, of (the) 6 and 7 cars, which was the observation cars.
And apparently from what I talked to with other mechanics, they saw the doors, the hatch doors blow off in the lobby level of 6 and 7 car.

Well you’re talking seconds now. It could take you on an average trip up, if you went non-stop at full speed, these cars, these elevators, the shuttle cars were designed to run at 1,600 foot per minute. I’m not sure how long it took to get up to the 107th floor, full speed. I think it was less, little less than a minute, little over a minute, I believe. But coming down at that rate, you’re free-falling and it’s dead weight, so it came down like a bomb, and that’s what it sounded like.
Content from External Source
These firefighters are also pretty clear in their description.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110308.PDF


Firefighter Craig Dunne: We proceeded to go into the lobby of tower one. We got in there. The glass was down in the front. There was a gentleman -- you saw people that were jumping from the building. You had to look up and make sure you didn't get hit by any jumpers or anything. We saw a couple of people that were burnt on the outside of the building. There was a gentleman that was burnt inside when we went in. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110490.PDF


Firefighter Peter Fallucca: Before we got in, all the elevators were crashed down in the lobby, and we were going to the stairwell. See all the elevators were crashed down, big slabs of marble on the floor, all the ceiling tiles of the dropped ceiling was falling down, wires hanging. You see wires and stuff hanging inside the elevator shafts, because the doors were blown right off the elevators. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html


FDNY Lieutenant William Walsh: In the center of these two elevator shafts would be the elevators that go to the lower floors. They were blown off the hinges. That’s where the service [freight] elevator was also. …They were blown off the hinges, and you could see the shafts. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110442.PDF


As he waited for orders, Meldrum, the chauffeur (Fire engine driver), noticed that all windows in the high lobby were blown out. Glass and marble from busted walls littered the floors, crunched underfoot. He caught an occasional whiff of jet fuel, a smell like kerosene, wafting from elevator shafts. On the floor by the elevators he saw burned people. http://www.projo.com/words/st20021016.htm


Lobby
Firefighter David Sandvik: We got down to the lobby, and when we got out of the stairwell, the lobby was deserted. Nobody was down there except the people coming out of our stairwell. We were walking through and the elevator doors were blowing [blown?] off. The lobby was just like a complete mess. I remember grabbing the proby that day and we were looking down the elevator bank and I said, man, this would make a hell of a picture. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110375.PDF


Firefighter John Moribito: I noticed that some of the elevators had been blown out of their shafts. They came down and crashed out of the shaft. They were buckled, and I had noticed that there were people still in the elevators. I believe that they were at that point deceased. Then I saw the lights in both buildings went out, and I heard the rumble. At that point, I didn’t know what was happening, but 2 World Trade Center was collapsing. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110354.PDF [/ex]


This guy describe elevators crashing down when he got to the lobby (@ :40)





Any thoughts Grieves?
 
So the story rests on the evidence of one man, who if he did not say what he was told to say would face the full wrath of the Bush administration and who's career and life would be shattered by the repercussions?

Also, although by no means conclusive, Chief Nigro's statement is somewhat contradicted by Silverstein's statement:

How is that contradictory? Silverstein suggested they pull the firefighters out when he was told it might not be saved. looks like he verified it. I would also think that Nigro didn't make the decision on his own.
 
Any thoughts Grieves?
Elevators are equipped with several independent safety features specifically designed to prevent them from plummeting, even in the event that all the cables are cut. The only time an elevator is at risk of 'plummeting' all the way to a crash at ground level is if the safety features have been specifically disabled by maintenance men. I couldn't find a single instance of a death in a plummeting elevator since 1940. That something happened to the elevators is clear. There are several reports of explosions/balls of fire spewing from the elevator shafts in both towers. Unless the several levels of inherent safety features failed in each elevator, and in each elevator-shaft significant quantities of jet-fuel survived while burning long enough to make the hundred-floor trip down, I'd say the destruction of the elevators is more evidence of explosive involvement, unless there's a reasonable explanation for why the built-in safety-features failed. If you were to cut all the cables in any other elevator in any other building, the result, when that elevator reached ground level, would certainly not be a fiery explosion. Remember, in the video presented above with the young blond firefighter and the older black firefighter discussing the lobby-explosion they experienced, they were already in the process of assembling in the lobby with the intention of commencing a rescue. That puts them well outside the time-frame of an elevator plummeting as a result of the plane-crash severing cables.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top