Things The NYT Doesn't Want To Talk About

[Mark Stevens]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Doug,

    This Wikipedia article about the observed free fall collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 is pseudo-scientific nonsense-- and I say that as a guy who was recruited to tutor physics when I was an undergrad at Brown back in the day.

     Office fires don't cause 47-floor steel skyscrapers to suddenly collapse in a symmetrical free fall.  That bogus NIST non-explanation simply defies the laws of Newtonian physics.

     Something had to abruptly eliminate all resistance to free fall acceleration.

     WTC7 was expertly demolished by pre-planted explosives on 9/11, after Larry Silverstein, in his own words, "told them to pull it."

My thoughts on building 7 are that it was ultimately demolished, but I'm not entirely sure how.

There was extensive damage and fires in building 7 by late afternoon an there was no ability to fight the fires due to water main disruptions. My belief is that it would have ultimately collapsed "naturally," but due to electrical infrastructure underneath building 7 which needed to be kept whole as much as possible the building was "pulled" to control the extent of the damage.

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said:

My thoughts on building 7 are that it was ultimately demolished, but I'm not entirely sure how.

There was extensive damage and fires in building 7 by late afternoon an there was no ability to fight the fires due to water main disruptions. My belief is that it would have ultimately collapsed "naturally," but due to electrical infrastructure underneath building 7 which needed to be kept whole as much as possible the building was "pulled" to control the extent of the damage.

There is no proof for the claim that there wasn't water to fight the fires in WTC 7. There are videos of the firefighters using high-pressure hoses to fight the fires in WTC 6. And they could have used water lines connected to the Hudson river to recharge the sprinkler system (there were water couplings on the outside of the building).

[Mark Stevens]

29 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

There is no proof for the claim that there wasn't water to fight the fires in WTC 7. There are videos of the firefighters using high-pressure hoses to fight the fires in WTC 6. And they could have used water lines connected to the Hudson river to recharge the sprinkler system (there were water couplings on the outside of the building).

There is though. The report (claim?) below is regard the ability to get water inside of the building. I can get plenty more which state the same thing, there was no water and the fires were "allowed" to burn.

 Lieutenant Rudolf Weindler

... The next thing I did was we saw a fire starting to show at windows in 7 World Trade Center, decided to go in and try and see if there was anybody in the building and/or put out the fires, and we did a search from floor to floor of 7 World Trade Center passing fire of floors 3, 7, 9. The standpipes had no water. We tried to extinguish a few fires with cans. When we got to 11, there was just too much smoke and we decided that, without water, if we went any higher, we’d be on a fool’s mission...

There are numerous reports of the water system sustaining major disruptions due to the collapse(s). While water could have been pumped in, this was all but unfeasible considering the general condition of the landscape at the time. You really need to familiarize yourself with the reports of the people who were on scene and responded to the disaster.

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

My thoughts on building 7 are that it was ultimately demolished, but I'm not entirely sure how.

There was extensive damage and fires in building 7 by late afternoon an there was no ability to fight the fires due to water main disruptions. My belief is that it would have ultimately collapsed "naturally," but due to electrical infrastructure underneath building 7 which needed to be kept whole as much as possible the building was "pulled" to control the extent of the damage.

"Pulled" by whom, Mark?  

Certainly not by the NYFD.  The NYFD doesn't do those kind of demolitions.

Larry Silverstein said, "I told them to pull it... and we watched it come down."

Who is "them?"

As for the NIST/Wikipedia narrative about office fires causing the abrupt-onset, free fall collapse of WTC7-- it's ludicrous.  (And the NIST model only pretended to explain the initial onset of a partial collapse on an upper floor, not the observed free fall collapse of all 47 floors.)

Local offices fires would have caused, at most, a partial, gradual, asymmetrical collapse of some floors-- not an abrupt, total, symmetrical collapse at the acceleration of gravity.

[Joe Bauer]

Haven't studied the subject much.

JFK/RFK/MLK conspiracy is about all I can handle.

However, I did try to find as many high rise controlled demolition videos on line as I could once and not one of those buildings in those videos fell any more symmetrically in their own footprint as perfectly as building 7, which was supposedly not even a controlled demolition.

Also in one of the videos posted by WN, we see what I assume is a firefighting expert who mentions past high rise building fire collapses in Pittsburg and L.A. etc, and he said "we" "have never seen" a building collapse from fire as the Twin Towers did.

Certainly lots to chew on regards more to the story in my opinion.

Just curious, how much did building owner Larry A. Silverstein collect in insurance in the end?

Edited June 29, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Robert Burrows]

5 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Haven't studied the subject much.

JFK/RFK/MLK conspiracy is about all I can handle.

However, I did try to find as many high rise controlled demolition videos on line as I could once and not one of those buildings in those videos fell any more symmetrically in their own footprint as perfectly as building 7, which was supposedly not even a controlled demolition.

Also in one of the videos posted by WN, we see what I assume is a firefighting expert who mentions past high rise building fire collapses in Pittsburg and L.A. etc, and he said "we" "have never seen" a building collapse from fire as the Twin Towers did.

Certainly lots to chew on regards more to the story in my opinion.

Just curious, how much did building owner Larry A. Silverstein collect in insurance in the end?

$4.6 billion.

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

$4.6 billion.

Wow!

[Douglas Caddy]

15 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Doug,

    This Wikipedia article about the observed free fall collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 is pseudo-scientific nonsense-- and I say that as a guy who was recruited to tutor physics when I was an undergrad at Brown back in the day.

     Office fires don't cause 47-floor steel skyscrapers to suddenly collapse in a symmetrical free fall.  That bogus NIST non-explanation simply defies the laws of Newtonian physics.

     Something had to abruptly eliminate all resistance to free fall acceleration.

     WTC7 was expertly demolished by pre-planted explosives on 9/11, after Larry Silverstein, in his own words, "told them to pull it."

I agree with you. I merely posted the wiki article because that it what is being accepted as dogma on the subject.

I have always believed the building was planned to be destroyed at part of 9/11 because it contained thousands of important documents that certain people wanted destroyed. For example in the Oval Office tapes Nixon talks about destroying a certain government file as an incentive to have someone do something he wanted, a file  that the person would be delighted to know it no longer existed.

[Micah Mileto]

18 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

There is though. The report (claim?) below is regard the ability to get water inside of the building. I can get plenty more which state the same thing, there was no water and the fires were "allowed" to burn.

 Lieutenant Rudolf Weindler

 

There are numerous reports of the water system sustaining major disruptions due to the collapse(s). While water could have been pumped in, this was all but unfeasible considering the general condition of the landscape at the time. You really need to familiarize yourself with the reports of the people who were on scene and responded to the disaster.

Unless I'm missing something, I think those reports were based on false information. Skip to 32:15 https://vimeo.com/392066090

 

 

[Pamela Brown]

I question if the WTC 1 and 2 towers were detonated per se.  They had an unusual construction, with load-bearing walls.  All the elevators were in the center.  So it was not impossible that the buildings pancaked due to the planes crashing into the center of each building. In addition, there were of course gas and electric lines that would have exploded as everything came apart.  

If the terrorists, or Bin Laden, understood the construction of these towers they would have realized they had an Achilles' heel.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Pamela Brown

[Mark Stevens]

3 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Unless I'm missing something, I think those reports were based on false information. Skip to 32:15 https://vimeo.com/392066090

 

 

I'm sorry, but I have to say you are mistaken. I believe much of his point regarding water supply can be summed up by his statements here:

Quote

…from a firefighters perspective, the claim of failed local water supplies as a reason for the fire being left to burn makes little sense. Even in the most difficult situations fire services will get water to an instant one way or another. It’s one of the professions fundamental responsibilities. If local supplies are lacking, firefighters will seek out other sources and tap into them as quickly as possible. Either from an alternative water main, a different location within the same water main, or from alternative water sources like the river Hudson.

I'm really not sure how this disproves (I'm not sure of the number and hazard to take a guess) the amount of eyewitnesses statements from firefighters who connected a hose to a hydrant and no water came out. I'm not sure how it disproves a firefighter turning on a standpipe inside of building 7 and no water coming out.

Regardless of what this guy in the video says, multiple people on site on 9/11 have personal experience with the fact that there were areas and instances of no water availability and the overall difficulty fighting the fires that day. Not only due to the lack of consistent water availability, but also due to reports of other planes, bombs, the amount of debris in the area, visibility conditions, not to mention the need to search for survivors. All of this impacted ways firefighters might react to a lack of available water under normal conditions. Secondary sources which might otherwise be available were also buried under debris, or impacted in some manner. 

Have you read the oral histories of the 500+ included first responders put out shortly after 9/11? These paint a vivid and fascinating picture of 9/11 which helps fills gaps and give insight into some areas and create questions in regards to others. I recommend you, and everyone, read them if you have not.

ETA: I do also have probably as many reports of fires being actively fought (and no report of water supply problems) as I do of water supply problems.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Mark Stevens

[Micah Mileto]

13 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

I'm sorry, but I have to say you are mistaken. I believe much of his point regarding water supply can be summed up by his statements here:

I'm really not sure how this disproves (I'm not sure of the number and hazard to take a guess) the amount of eyewitnesses statements from firefighters who connected a hose to a hydrant and no water came out. I'm not sure how it disproves a firefighter turning on a standpipe inside of building 7 and no water coming out.

Regardless of what this guy in the video says, multiple people on site on 9/11 have personal experience with the fact that there were areas and instances of no water availability and the overall difficulty fighting the fires that day. Not only due to the lack of consistent water availability, but also due to reports of other planes, bombs, the amount of debris in the area, visibility conditions, not to mention the need to search for survivors. All of this impacted ways firefighters might react to a lack of available water under normal conditions. Secondary sources which might otherwise be available were also buried under debris, or impacted in some manner. 

Have you read the oral histories of the 500+ included first responders put out shortly after 9/11? These paint a vivid and fascinating picture of 9/11 which helps fills gaps and give insight into some areas and create questions in regards to others. I recommend you, and everyone, read them if you have not.

ETA: I do also have probably as many reports of fires being actively fought (and no report of water supply problems) as I do of water supply problems.

Why are there videos of firefighters using high-pressure hoses to fight the fires in Building five?

 

This would not be the first time a FDNY member took responsibility for information that did not come from them. There is a video of a firefighter pointing to Building 7 and saying you can see it leaning with the naked eye - even though nobody has ever provided any photographic evidence for the building leaning. Peter Hayden also gave statements which implied he was the one who judged Seven to be a lost cause, even though in other statements he said that judgement was made before he even started dealing with that building.

[Mark Stevens]

5 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Why are there videos of firefighters using high-pressure hoses to fight the fires in Building five?

 

This would not be the first time a FDNY member took responsibility for information that did not come from them. There is a video of a firefighter pointing to Building 7 and saying you can see it leaning with the naked eye - even though nobody has ever provided any photographic evidence for the building leaning. Peter Hayden also gave statements which implied he was the one who judged Seven to be a lost cause, even though in other statements he said that judgement was made before he even started dealing with that building.

I'm not intending to imply there was no water at all or no ability to fight any fire. Just that there were localized areas and instances with a water supply issue. For whatever reason, building 7 was definitely impacted by a disruption at some point.

As far as leaning, I personally never heard any accounts of building 7 leaning, but I have for 1. I have never been able to see a noticeable lean in building 1 though. 

[Micah Mileto]

2 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

I'm not intending to imply there was no water at all or no ability to fight any fire. Just that there were localized areas and instances with a water supply issue. For whatever reason, building 7 was definitely impacted by a disruption at some point.

As far as leaning, I personally never heard any accounts of building 7 leaning, but I have for 1. I have never been able to see a noticeable lean in building 1 though. 

From what I understand, they could have just attached a water line to the couplings on the outside of the buildings, which were there for the purpose of recharging the water sprinkler system.

 

There are also videos of the water sprinklers going off on floors that alledgedly had no functioning sprinklers.

 

There were reports of the top of WTC 1 leaning, but nobody has provided any photographic evidence of that. There is photographic evidence of the exterior columns around the plane impacts bending inward, so maybe that created an optical illusion that looked like the entire top was leaning.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

27 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

The SEC had all of the filings of public companies in WTC #7. The SEC started digitizing filings in about 1994 but priority went to newest filings first, which were constantly coming in. By 2001, they had at best digitized the historical library back to about 1980. 

If anyone wanted to look at the late 50s to early 60s public Financial filings of Zapata, the SEC filings are gone.

Copies would have gone out to shareholders so I’m sure more than a few people have them in some box in an attic. Some institutional investors probably have copies in Long Term storage somewhere.

According to news reports, the SEC had to rebuild a lot of it's own cases because of the evidence that was lost forever in Building Seven.