Professional Witnesses Disagree With NIST i.e. Ladder 15 we've got two isolated pockets of fire.

[Oxymoron]

Professional witnesses disagree with NIST's assessment of conditions, (upon which they based their findings).

How can there be such massive disparity between experienced people in situ and subsequent hypothesis of why the tower collapsed?

NIST's assessment of the temperatures in the Tower, (500 to 600 degrees C) just prior to collapse cannot be accurate as it would be impossible for Ladder 15 to be where they said they were.

http://www.wireonfire.com/donpaul/wit/23TranscriptFDNYfirefightertheSouthTower.pdf

Transcript of talk between FDNY Batallion Seven Chief Orio Palmer
and other firefighters on 9/11/01. Triathlete Palmer and Fire Marshal
Ronald Bucca had climbed to the South Tower's 78th floor Sky Lobby
by 9:52 a.m., six minutes before that Tower suddenly began to
explode. The New York Times wrote: 'Nowhere on the tape is there
any indication that firefighters had the slightest indication that the
tower had become unstable or that it could fall.

9:52 a.m.
Battalion Seven Chief (Orio Palmer): "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15,
we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it
down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code
Ones."
Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."
Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna
need two engines up here."
Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."
...
9:57 a.m.
Battalion Seven Chief: "Operations Tower One to floor above
Battalion Nine."
Battalion Nine Chief: "Battalion Nine to command post."
Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations
Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have
access stairs going up to 79, kay."
Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up Orio."
9:58 a.m.
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."
Communication from Orio Palmer ends.

Content from external source

http://www.nyfd.com/radio.html

10-4 Acknowledgement

10-45 D.O.A. OR SERIOUS INJURY
Transmitted IMMEDIATELY upon the discovery of a fatality
or serious injury at a fire or emergency. This shall be
followed as soon as possible with the appropriate Code
and the number of victims.

CODE 1 Victim Deceased

Content from external source

How are these discrepancies reconciled?

 

[Mick West]

Where is NIST's assessment of conditions for that location?

 

[Mick West]

Clearly though there was NOT just "two isolated pockets" of fire. One just has to look at the photos of the exterior to see that. The firemen could only see what they had access to.

Have a look at the spread of the fires. South tower (WTC2) is on the left here. You can see the fires spreading across multiple floors just before the collapse.

 

[Oxymoron]

Where is NIST's assessment of conditions for that location?

Here are some more accounts of the conditions.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usat-escape.htm

Only four people survived above the 78th floor in the south tower. They did it by acting against the advice of others and going down the stairs through smoke and debris. Dozens more, possibly hundreds, could have taken the same path to safety. Instead, they went up in search of a helicopter rescue that would never come.

Content from external source

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

• 
  

  
  [*]In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.
  [*]The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
  

  Content from external source

 

[Mick West]

I'm not seeing the discrepancy here. Clearly the firemen were not right next to the main fires. They could not see the entire building around and above them.

I know this has been discussed on the internet many times. The answers are out there. One of the failings of the skeptical movement is that the answers are not that easy to find. That's something I'm working on.

 

[Oxymoron]

I'm not seeing the discrepancy here. Clearly the firemen were not right next to the main fires. They could not see the entire building around and above them.

I know this has been discussed on the internet many times. The answers are out there. One of the failings of the skeptical movement is that the answers are not that easy to find. That's something I'm working on.

I think it quite an important issue Mick. There are many discrepancies between TPTB accounts and witness accounts and visual evidence.

In order for the official account to be accurate, the anomalies need to be reconciled.

WTC 1 'Fires weakened steel resulting in unprecedented straight down total collapse, (as a natural consequence). And yet the fires are visually 'not that severe' at the impact floors/collapse initiation points. Edna Cintron is seen waving from the gash in 1 for nearly an hour. How hot could it be?

WTC 2 Ditto re steel weakened but impact was only on one corner which implies little damage to core. People evacuate down through the the worst affected floors/collapse initiation floors and firefighters, (who have come up through the the entire height of the building) describe the fires as 'isolated pockets of fire'.

WTC 7 Described as 'bulging out at the side' and 'totally engaged in fire' is evidently 'from visual evidence' only subject to relatively small office fires on some floors.

People then wonder why other people ask questions.

 

[Mick West]

Let's keep it on topic. What is the actual discrepancy with Palmer and Bucca here?

It seems most likely that when they said "two isolated pockets of fire" they were just referring to what they could see.

 

[Oxymoron]

Let's keep it on topic. What is the actual discrepancy with Palmer and Bucca here?

It seems most likely that when they said "two isolated pockets of fire" they were just referring to what they could see.

But they are experienced firefighters. They would not 'open a door, see no fire' and report back 'everyone go home there is no problem here'. No, they would take in the whole situation and and do a proper assessment.

 

[Mick West]

But they are experienced firefighters. They would not 'open a door, see no fire' and report back 'everyone go home there is no problem here'. No, they would take in the whole situation and and do a proper assessment.

Oh, well clearly it was a controlled demolition then.

Or maybe they just did not see all the fire? Because they could not get to it?

 

[Oxymoron]

Oh, well clearly it was a controlled demolition then.

Finally seeing the light.

 

[Mick West]

They were on the 78th floor:

 

[lee h oswald]

Here are some more accounts of the conditions.



http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

• 
  

  
  [*]In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.
  [*]The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
  

  Content from external source

Reading that is quite nauseating. Those people are no more qualified to judge than you or I, O, are they? I mean, making statements like 'WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns', which is pure bullshit coming from an organisation that never did a proper forensic examination of the physical evidence. And even if a corner column of a tower was completely severed it would make virtually no difference to the structure because the loads would be redistributed through the bracing, by design.

Those firefighter transcripts you posted above, O, are testament to the professional dedication of those men. I've heard tape, but written down it's somehow filled with even more meaning. Honesty has a way of being seen, thanks O.

 

[lee h oswald]

They were on the 78th floor:

Three out of five showing the corner that pissed molten metal (penultimate one has some) - and paltry fires in the context of the structure - and just before it all 'collapsed' (meaning, 'peeled itself like a dust and steel banana').

 

[lee h oswald]

Looking again, more like 5 out of 5. Hmmm.

 

[Mick West]

But considerably more than isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor. In fact most of the fire seems to be above the 80th floor, which they would not have seen. Hence the premise of this thread is debunked.
.

 

[Oxymoron]

But considerably more than isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor. In fact most of the fire seems to be above the 80th floor, which they would not have seen. Hence the premise of this thread is debunked.
.

Well that would be a nice argument. But it would be a lot more solid if when they say:

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna
need two engines up here."
Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."

Content from external source

...the response was something along the lines of:

'Negative, you are only seeing the small picture, we see raging fires above you and we are concerned the building will collapse... get back down asap'. But it wasn't.

 

[Mick West]

What could Ladder 15 see? Where were they?

 

[Pete Tar]

What's a 'professional witness'? They pay people to witness things now?

 

[Grieves]

"An expert witness, professional witness or judicial expert is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially and legally rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of his expertise, referred to as the expert opinion, as an assistance to the fact-finder."

 

[Pete Tar]

So they had specialized knowledge of the extent of fire throughout the whole building? Or they used their professional knowledge and experience to evaluate the situation they could see directly?

 

[Grieves]

So they had specialized knowledge of the extent of fire throughout the whole building? Or they used their professional knowledge and experience to evaluate the situation they could see directly?

The latter. What I believe oxy is getting at is their evaluation gave no indication whatsoever that the building was in any danger of collapsing.
They were on the 78th floor, only a few floors below the most intensely damaged levels where visible flames were at their highest, and were in radio-contact moments before the wholesale collapse of the entire structure. If that collapse was indeed the result of slow and progressive weakening of the structure throughout the course of the fire, one would expect apparent evidence of that impending collapse so close to it's source. While the lack of more gradual external warping of the structure prior to collapse can perhaps be explained, can the lack of internal evidence be so easily dismissed? Six minutes prior to the collapse, these highly trained men voiced no indication that a collapse was due, or even a concern. Wouldn't massive structural beams be rather noisy as they gradually succumb to tremendous presssures?

 

[Sticky Fingers]

The latter. What I believe oxy is getting at is their evaluation gave no indication whatsoever that the building was in any danger of collapsing.
They were on the 78th floor, only a few floors below the most intensely damaged levels where visible flames were at their highest, and were in radio-contact moments before the wholesale collapse of the entire structure. If that collapse was indeed the result of slow and progressive weakening of the structure throughout the course of the fire, one would expect apparent evidence of that impending collapse so close to it's source.

But considerably more than isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor. In fact most of the fire seems to be above the 80th floor, which they would not have seen. Hence the premise of this thread is debunked.
.

Very few people made it from above the impact point down through the fires to safety.
Both because of structural damage and the intensity of the fire and smoke.
I believe it only happenend in one of the buildings.

Judging the fire from floors below doesn't really cut it.
These were very hot and intense fires.

 

[Mick West]

The latter. What I believe oxy is getting at is their evaluation gave no indication whatsoever that the building was in any danger of collapsing.
They were on the 78th floor, only a few floors below the most intensely damaged levels where visible flames were at their highest, and were in radio-contact moments before the wholesale collapse of the entire structure. If that collapse was indeed the result of slow and progressive weakening of the structure throughout the course of the fire, one would expect apparent evidence of that impending collapse so close to it's source. While the lack of more gradual external warping of the structure prior to collapse can perhaps be explained, can the lack of internal evidence be so easily dismissed? Six minutes prior to the collapse, these highly trained men voiced no indication that a collapse was due, or even a concern. Wouldn't massive structural beams be rather noisy as they gradually succumb to tremendous presssures?

That makes no sense. If the fires are above them, why would they see evidence of damage two floors below the fires?

 

[Grieves]

I'm not speaking of the fires, I'm speaking of the structural integrity of the building. The official account suggests the core columns of the building were gradually compromised by the fires, leading to eventual collapse. That the structural steel was weakened over time, and in the end gave way. If massive steel columns running through the entire building were getting progressively closer and closer to failure, wouldn't there be some indication of that throughout the structure, especially in close proximity to the worst affected floors? Wouldn't there be quite a bit of noise/vibration long before the columns actually gave way? Metal makes noise when under extreme stress, doesn't it?

 

[Sticky Fingers]

If massive steel columns running through the entire building were getting progressively closer and closer to failure, wouldn't there be some indication of that throughout the structure, especially in close proximity to the worst affected floors?

I wouldn't necessarily think so.
I don't think the firefighters got close enough to see the real damage. No one could. It would have been too hot.
But if they were able to be on a floor then damage wouldn't have been necessarily readily apparent. The temperature wasn't hot enough.

Wouldn't there be quite a bit of noise/vibration long before the columns actually gave way?

I would imagine there was a tremendous amount of noise there. Between the fires and people trying to yell to be heard at times.
In the utter confusion of it all I doubt they knew the columns were collapsing much before they did.

 

[Oxymoron]

The latter. What I believe oxy is getting at is their evaluation gave no indication whatsoever that the building was in any danger of collapsing.
They were on the 78th floor, only a few floors below the most intensely damaged levels where visible flames were at their highest, and were in radio-contact moments before the wholesale collapse of the entire structure. If that collapse was indeed the result of slow and progressive weakening of the structure throughout the course of the fire, one would expect apparent evidence of that impending collapse so close to it's source. While the lack of more gradual external warping of the structure prior to collapse can perhaps be explained, can the lack of internal evidence be so easily dismissed? Six minutes prior to the collapse, these highly trained men voiced no indication that a collapse was due, or even a concern. Wouldn't massive structural beams be rather noisy as they gradually succumb to tremendous presssures?

Grieves has very nicely summed up my position on this. Thanks. I would also add, as apparently I did not make it clear in the earlier post, that firefighters were in radio contact with their colleagues, who had a broader observation platform and at no time did they say 'Ladder 15 get the hell out of there the building is going to collapse, you are too low down to see the carnage that is taking place above you'.

Well that would be a nice argument. But it would be a lot more solid if when they say:

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna
need two engines up here."
Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."

Content from external source

...the response was something along the lines of:

'Negative, you are only seeing the small picture, we see raging fires above you and we are concerned the building will collapse... get back down asap'. But it wasn't.

As for SF's post

Very few people made it from above the impact point down through the fires to safety.
Both because of structural damage and the intensity of the fire and smoke.
I believe it only happenend in one of the buildings.

Judging the fire from floors below doesn't really cut it.
These were very hot and intense fires.

See above and also:

Content from external source
Only four people survived above the 78th floor in the south tower. They did it by acting against the advice of others and going down the stairs through smoke and debris. Dozens more, possibly hundreds, could have taken the same path to safety. Instead, they went up in search of a helicopter rescue that would never come.

Smoke and debris is not raging fires at extreme temps. Add to that that the building was open plan thereby giving a good view of each floor, not just a room.

Jazzy has made much in the past of 'floors collapsing' prior to the collapse. There has been no evidence to substantiate this claim although he has claimed to have seen pictures.

 

[SR1419]

The latter. What I believe oxy is getting at is their evaluation gave no indication whatsoever that the building was in any danger of collapsing

Slightly off topic but still pertinent.

Do you place the same weight of authority to all the firemen's evaluation that WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing?


https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

 

[Oxymoron]

Slightly off topic but still pertinent.

Do you place the same weight of authority to all the firemen's evaluation that WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing?


https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

From video comments

Florencio Moreno 11 months ago

BTW guys, the man in blue is talking about Building 5, which, if you take the time to look at the photographs, you can see that all major clouds of smoke are coming from building 5, which of course building 5&6 burned more and suffered significantly more damage than building 7 from debris. If this video is here to debunk things, when investigated with a brain, it actually makes those very things more plausible. Thanks Mr. Firemen.

Content from external source

And your link is to wtc 7 and the comments are from people with vested interests in 'authority versions of events'.

Lets look at some

"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak

Content from external source

ROFLMAO... Where TF is his photo's to support this claim... 'Oh the dog ate my camera boss... sorry I couldn't get any pics but I made a statement'.

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild.

Content from external source

Oh yeah... well fuck my boots... look at those crazy flames the whole building is a giant blazing inferno. I just can't believe I have never seen it before. Thanks SR, you have changed my life. I have a far better understanding of 'confirmation bias' now.

 

[SR1419]

So, let me get this straight...you think that because a firefighter - standing in a stairwell in the corner of the lowest floor of the impact zone- reported 2 isolated pockets of fire- that is somehow evidence of an inside job??

Apparently the fires were intense and widespread enough that approximately 200 people felt compelled to jump to their deaths rather than face the fire:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ca-wants-forget-victims-fell-Twin-Towers.html

Here is an eyewitness who was helped by the firefighters in question:

http://webdoc.nyumc.org/nyumc/files/communications/u3/patient-stories.pdf

Of the people on the 78th floor and above in the south
tower that day, only 17 survived. But Ling’s saga was just beginning. When the jet hit, it released a fireball of burning fuel. While Ling was never actually touched by the flames, the
2,000-degree heat left her with third-degree burns—the most severe type—over 20 percent of her body. “It’s a thermal burn,” she explains. “I was cooked from the inside.

Content from external source

Jazzy has made much in the past of 'floors collapsing' prior to the collapse. There has been no evidence to substantiate this claim although he has claimed to have seen pictures.

The highest level reached by a firefighter in the North Tower is believed to have been the 65th floor. The firefighter, believed to be a member of Ladder Company 3, radioed, at an unspecified time, that a partial collapse had occurred on one of the floors in the 60s.

Content from external source

http://www.fireengineering.com/arti...d-trade-center-disaster-initial-response.html

I think it obvious that the firefighters in question had a limited view of what was going on at the time and only in hindsight can we say for certain that the fires in the South tower were not isolated or small pockets.

 

[SR1419]

Oh yeah... well fuck my boots... look at those crazy flames the whole building is a giant blazing inferno. I just can't believe I have never seen it before. Thanks SR, you have changed my life. I have a far better understanding of 'confirmation bias' now.

So, a quote from a fireman that supports your belief despite visual evidence to the contrary is acceptable- but a quote from a photographer which you include with an out of context picture is somehow proof of an inside job...


...and somehow taking a random internet users comment from a Youtube video is supposedly a definitive answer as to which building the fireman is referring? Really Oxy? is that all you got - youtube comments?? Any possible evidence contrary to your beliefs just gets waved away with youtube comments and desperate sarcasm. Classic OxyMoron.

As for your boots- its probably best if you keep your proclivities to yourself.


https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

1. The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

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

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

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

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

6. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

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

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

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

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. – Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Were you injured?

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

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

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

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

Q. The door was blocked?

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

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

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

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

Q: That was 7 World Trade Center?

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

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

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

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

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

Content from external source

 

[Oxymoron]

So, a quote from a fireman that supports your belief despite visual evidence to the contrary is acceptable- but a quote from a photographer which you include with an out of context picture is somehow proof of an inside job...


...and somehow taking a random internet users comment from a Youtube video is supposedly a definitive answer as to which building the fireman is referring? Really Oxy? is that all you got - youtube comments?? Any possible evidence contrary to your beliefs just gets waved away with youtube comments and desperate sarcasm. Classic OxyMoron.

Yep sorry about that. I guess it is 'typical Oxy' to use 'an out of context picture', I think you should supply some more 'in context ones' just to show how bad I am.

Let us not forget what you are validating though:

Content from external source

"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak
Content from external source
"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild.

Are you saying the YT commenter is wrong in their assertion. What do you base that on?

'YouTube video's', 'YouTube comments', what is the difference in validity?

AFAIK, they are simply pictures/movie clips vs written. Many YouTube commenters actually post videos. Should Mick take all his videos and comments off of YouTube? What is the difference between commenting here on a forum and YouTube?

SR

So, let me get this straight...you think that because a firefighter - standing in a stairwell in the corner of the lowest floor of the impact zone- reported 2 isolated pockets of fire- that is somehow evidence of an inside job??

Please refer to OP. No one single anomaly proves 'an inside job' but each one adds up. You are aware of the new posting rules on this site are you? i.e. a refinement of the old rules, 'focus on specific points one at a time'.

See when a Jury considers a verdict, they take all the evidence covered in the trial and evaluate it all in context... 'the big picture'. Like I say, this anomaly does not of itself prove an inside job but I still retain the wider issues whilst I evaluate these micro issues.

 

[SR1419]

See when a Jury considers a verdict, they take all the evidence covered in the trial and evaluate it all in context... 'the big picture'. Like I say, this anomaly does not of itself prove an inside job but I still retain the wider issues whilst I evaluate these micro issues.

We know for a fact that this small anecdote does not represent the "big" picture of the extent of the fires. So, why bring it up? Its misdirection

 

[Bmead]

But considerably more than isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor. In fact most of the fire seems to be above the 80th floor, which they would not have seen. Hence the premise of this thread is debunked.
.

Not really, the images given provide a clear point that the fires are not outrageously searing infernos, they are relatively limited. Additionally, there should be some idea of imminent collapse, groaning and cracking of steel and concrete. Sound, and heat, smoke, and damage would also be an indicator of further fires. It is always the case that people say, DEBUNKED. Then sweep it away. You are of course, correct that they report what they see only. But then that is true of your point, and what you and i see is odd in itself, fires that have sustained from the moment of impact, when any fuel would long be burnt out, when any fuel to sustain in the context of carpets or furnishings would be almost depleted. If you have a bonfire, then is the heat equal at the start, as to when 3/4 of it is burnt? No. The point is not in the least debunked. If you take the firemens statements and all visual evidence, any other statements from any phonecalls and living witnesses, then you can build a floor by floor detailed analysis. This is not something ever done.

 

[JRBids]

Here are some more accounts of the conditions.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usat-escape.htm

Only four people survived above the 78th floor in the south tower. They did it by acting against the advice of others and going down the stairs through smoke and debris. Dozens more, possibly hundreds, could have taken the same path to safety. Instead, they went up in search of a helicopter rescue that would never come.

Content from external source

If only everyone trapped or looking for an exit in the smoke knew that if only theygone THROUGH the smoke and debris, that was the way out. How could they?

But they are experienced firefighters. They would not 'open a door, see no fire' and report back 'everyone go home there is no problem here'. No, they would take in the whole situation and and do a proper assessment.

Content from external source

And yet, after the first attack, people were told to just stay at their desks, everything was secure. Watching on TV, living in NY, formerly working in NYC, I had to insert myself and wonder if I were working in the WTC would I be alive. Would I stay at my desk. How would I know? Would listen to the announcements, would I go through smoke or try to find another way out. Life if not a movie where the stars manage to lead the survivors through a tortuous route to safety.

 

[JRBids]

Three out of five showing the corner that pissed molten metal (penultimate one has some) - and paltry fires in the context of the structure - and just before it all 'collapsed' (meaning, 'peeled itself like a dust and steel banana').

Paltry fires? Were you inside?

Reading that is quite nauseating.

Content from external source

[...] Paltry fires in the corner?

[Admin: Politeness Edits]

 

[Marcus Mudd]

It seems obvious to anyone not a staff member or senior member of the site that there are glaring discrepancies and this is not debunked

 

[Josh Heuer]

You know, the thing that really bothers me with debunkers on this...when we were talking about the topic of how they knew building 7 would collapse hours before it did, of course everyone is an expert and can make that judgement without knowing what's going on in the building. But now when there's discrepancy on what was actually going on in the building, with people who were actually in the building, suddenly the position changes to 'ohh well how would they know what's going on or the extent of the damage etc.'
Pick a side debunkers.

 

[Mick West]

It seems obvious to anyone not a staff member or senior member of the site that there are glaring discrepancies and this is not debunked

Facts please. Not opinions. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pr...two-isolated-pockets-of-fire.2079/#post-57401
Then explain how they would assess the situation from the 78th floor.

 

[Mick West]

You know, the thing that really bothers me with debunkers on this...when we were talking about the topic of how they knew building 7 would collapse hours before it did, of course everyone is an expert and can make that judgement without knowing what's going on in the building. But now when there's discrepancy on what was actually going on in the building, with people who were actually in the building, suddenly the position changes to 'ohh well how would they know what's going on or the extent of the damage etc.'
Pick a side debunkers.

WTC7 was very different from WTC1/2, in many ways. You can't blindly apply the same analysis to both situations.

 

[Josh Heuer]

WTC7 was very different from WTC1/2, in many ways. You can't blindly apply the same analysis to both situations.

Ohh really? Care to explain these differences?
And I don't mean the differences in the building structures.