FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Josiah Thompson]

Professor Fetzer has not chosen to reply to my claim that he published a photo in his latest book which was taken months or years before 9/11 with a caption claiming to show that it was taken during the attack on the Twin Towers." The caption to a photo of WTC-7 to be found on page 78 of his book reads: "WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at ground level." The "modest fire at ground level" is in fact a modern sculpture on the promenade level installed years before 9/11. Thanks to a suggestion from Len Colby I've learned how to post photos on "photobucket.com." I hope this works. Below you will find (1) a photo of the page from Fetzer's book, (2) a close-up of the photo of WTC-7 which he published on that page, and (3) an aerial photo taken in 1999 which shows clearly that that he calls "a modest fire at ground level" is really the modern sculpture I mentioned above.

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...on/scan0003.jpg

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...on/scan0005.jpg

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...ompson/scan.jpg

Since the point is so obvious, it would be expected that Professor Fetzer would admit the error or offer some kind of defense.

Josiah Thompson

[Josiah Thompson]

"How did they correctly guess that Building 7 would collapse when other buildings sustained more damage and had more intense fires and didn't collapse?"

You ask a very good question. For example, 90 West Street burned ferociously through most of the day and did not collapse. The Deutsche Bank building suffered far more impact damage than WTC7 and did not collapse.

Chief Dan Nigro touched on his reasons in his public statement that I quoted. He mentioned that WTC7 had an open atrium which meant that the building was supported by its central core and four corners. Nigro had been in the building to attend meetings at OEM and distrusted this modern construction. Involved in his decision and that of his command staff not to fight fires in the building that day were other factors: (1) at this time in the day they believed they had lost up to a thousand firemen in the collapse of the towers. (2) the building was empty; all people had been successfully evacuated early in the day. (3) With the rupture of a 20 inch main on Vesey Street, Nigro had no water to fight a fire in a high-rise building. (Water pumped from fireboats in the Hudson could not produce the pressure required to fight a high-rise fire). You are right to call it a "guess" on Nigro's part. No one could know the building would collapse. The decision not to fight fires in the building was based on a cost/benefit analysis.... FDNY had already lost hundreds of firefighters; no one was in the building; they lacked the water they needed to do the job.

Had Nigro known what we know now about the building's construction and the 40,000+ gallons of diesel fuel stored in or under it, he would have had all the more reason to choose not to fight fires in the building and establish a "pull-back" or collapse zone around it. But all Nigro knew was that he didn't trust the construction of the building, didn't want to risk more of his firemen's lives and had no water to fight a fire in it.

If you want me to answer why WTC7 collapsed and other buildings like 90 West and Deutsche Bank didn't collapse, I'll be pleased to do that. But that question you didn't raise. You did, however, say, "And, it is hard to believe that the building was designed to collapse just like a demolition if one of it's collumn's load bearing capacity was compromised."

Let me try to answer your concern here. The building was not designed to collapse this way. The fact that no redundancy was built into its design was a design weakness. By "no redundancy," I mean the fact that the failure of a major structural component would lead to progressive collapse. This is an elementary fact about the design of this building. Why was it designed this way?

In the late 60s, the ConEd substation was constructed on the site to provide power to the towers. It was known that the air rights to the site would be sold and that a building would be constructed over the substation. Huge caissons were drilled down to bedrock and constructed through the substation to support any eventual building. However, when WTC7 was built fifteen years later, the footprint of the building was expanded by over 30% to squeeze the last square inch of office space out of the site. The load from the increased size of the building had to be carried back into the original caissons. This was done by the erection of three massive cantilever trusses located on the 5th to 7th floors. If one of these trusses was weakened by fire, the result would be the progressive collapse of the building. This design is illegal in Europe but, oddly enough, is legal in New York City. This design flaw plus the increased span between columns permitted by a change in the building code in 1978 meant that the building was rather delicate. Given unabated fires on many floors plus the diesel fuel load in the lower floors finally brought the building down at 5:21 PM. The failure of a truss made the building collapse in the manner it did and prompted your question. This was not desired but it was a consequence of the design of the building.

I have no idea why the BBC reported what it did. NIST has taken such a long time because of the difficulties of computer modeling the complexity of the collapse.

How did they correctly guess that Building 7 would collapse when other buildings sustained more damage and had more intense fires and didn't collapse? What are the odds that the BBC would announce that the building had already fallen, twenty minutes before it did, if it really did fall due to random events? And, it is hard to believe that the building was designed to collapse just like a demolition if one of it's collumn's load bearing capacity was compromised. Why did it take the NIST team almost seven years to make this astonishing discovery if it were so self evident? I am no engineer, but it sounds like bull to me.

[Jack White]

Professor Fetzer has not chosen to reply to my claim that he published a photo in his latest book which was taken months or years before 9/11 with a caption claiming to show that it was taken during the attack on the Twin Towers." The caption to a photo of WTC-7 to be found on page 78 of his book reads: "WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at ground level." The "modest fire at ground level" is in fact a modern sculpture on the promenade level installed years before 9/11. Thanks to a suggestion from Len Colby I've learned how to post photos on "photobucket.com." I hope this works. Below you will find (1) a photo of the page from Fetzer's book, (2) a close-up of the photo of WTC-7 which he published on that page, and (3) an aerial photo taken in 1999 which shows clearly that that he calls "a modest fire at ground level" is really the modern sculpture I mentioned above.

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...on/scan0003.jpg

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...on/scan0005.jpg

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...ompson/scan.jpg

Since the point is so obvious, it would be expected that Professor Fetzer would admit the error or offer some kind of defense.

Josiah Thompson

The "fault" if any is mine. Jim asked me to do the photo section on a very rush

basis after the book was already typeset, and the publisher insisted on a photo

section. I hurriedly put together the eight page section. The WTC 7 image I chose

was one I had saved several years earlier from a website which had described

the red at the bottom of the building as a fire. There are many similar photos

showing a small fire in the same location, and I hurriedly made the assumption

that the site I saved the image from was correct. The red object is a sculpture

by Alexander Calder (see image). Either the text or photo will be modified in the

next printing, if any. I will notify Jim of the change.

If this is the ONLY fault Professor Thompson can find in Jim's excellent book,

we are in good shape indeed, since this is a minor error of the nit-picky kind.

I must assume that Professor Thompson could find no errors of greater magnitude

than this.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

"What about “the modest fire at street level?” Well, that turns out to be a colorful modernist sculpture in bright orange, yellow and red that had been placed there on the mezzanine level years before 9/11." The photographs showing this to be the case are posted on the other thread from which you drew this quote. Do you still disagree that this is the case?

Your familiar nasty tone does not disguise the fact that you just don't get the point: Larry Silverstein never talked to "the fire commander" on 9/11. How do we know this? Because the "fire commander," Chief Daniel Nigro, said he never talked to Silverstein. Why did Silverstein say what he said? I don't know but I can guess. Here's my guess.

Nigro and his command staff made the decision not to fight fires in the building in the early afternoon. At that point, Nigro established a "pull-back" or collapse zone around WTC7. Nigro never communicated with Silverstein and would not be expected to. My bet is that someone back at FDNY Headquarters at Metrotech in Brooklyn thought it might be a good idea to tell the owner what was going on. That person communicated to Silverstein that a "pull-back" order had been given and somehow this all gets translated into what Silverstein said.

Your silly-ass comments reported from a "Langley veteran" and "veteran CIA observer" are just drivel, the usual attempt at character assassination practiced by you and your pal Fetzer when you have no facts to cite.

Josiah Thompson

UPI, “Tinkering with the official fictions,” 4 July 2008, p.1:

Josiah Thompson, the discredited one-time lead salesman for the fraudulent Zapruder film, today conceded that Larry Silverstein did indeed mean “collapse the tower deliberately” when he remarked “pull it.”

The admission came in the opening post of yet another Thompsonian thread devoted to his obsessive pursuit of Professor James Fetzer, the prominent 9/11 and Zapruder film dissident. It was all the more unexpected given Thompson’s presumed intention to debunk, not reinforce, conspiratorial interpretations of Silverstein’s shocking confession:

For years, Fetzer has been trading on the interview Larry Silverstein gave a few months after 9/11. In this interview, Silverstein said he talked to “the fire commander” on the afternoon of 9/11. Given the massive loss of life earlier that day, Silverstien said he told the fire commander “to pull it.” Fetzer misinterprets “pull it” to be a term of art in demolition circles meaning “bring down the building with controlled demolitions.” As countless internet sites have already shown, “pull it” in demolition-speak means what you would think it would mean: “attach a cable to a supporting beam and pull it.

Experts are divided over the motivation and purpose of Thompson’s rare flirtation with a near- truth. “Simple incompetence,” one Langley veteran sighed, “and not remotely credible as an alternative explanation.” Others were less charitable, but preferred to remain anonymous given Thompson’s connections: “He’s lost it completely,” commented one such poster, hastily adding “a whole team of firemen, that is.”

Nor was this his only significant gaff in the course of the same thread. Elsewhere, he deprived official whitewashers of one important source of fire driving the alleged “spontaneous” collapse favoured by his masters.

What about “the modest fire at street level?” Well, that turns out to be a colorful modernist sculpture in bright orange, yellow and red that had been placed there on the mezzanine level years before 9/11.

One lasting consequence of Thompson’s bizarrely ill-considered reintervention in the case is widely bruited: He’ll lose his post as lead investigator in a suit launched against Silverstein. The legal action has been brought as part of a classic CIA wedge-and-flip operation designed to divide 9/11 dissidents from the victims; portray the dissidents as aligned with Silverstein and the bankers; and simultaneously vindicate the establishment’s fiction of collapse through fire and debris damage. “It’s a damn shame,” remarked the same veteran CIA observer, “particularly since he gained such experience of a similar op back in ’67.”

If – when – Thompson does lose the job, his second-in-command is universally regarded as certain to step up. Monsieur Closeau is widely admired in powerful circles for his inability to solve a quick crossword, never mind unravel a complex CIA covert operation.

[Len Colby]

Why would Silverstein or officials of the NYFD expect (correctly, if the official explanation is true) the building to collapse due to removing the firefighters?

I’m sure if one thinks about it long and hard enough they can figure the connection between a fire department ending their efforts to put out a building fire and the building collapsing. No one in the FD indicated however said the building would collapse because they pulled the fire fighters. It was the other way round they removed the fire fighters because they feared the building would collapse

I have heard that the building was "creaking" or otherwise showing signs of having it's structural integrity severely compromised. I can recall only one or two witnesses making this claim. If this was in fact the case, it is incumbent on the NIST and FEMA teams to provide adequate verification.

If you take a look at the wtc7lies site you'll see that the author quotes numerous menbers of the FD who were there saying they though the building would collapse not only because of the noises it was making but do to:

• the severity of the fires they didn't have water to fight
  
• large holes in thew south facade
  
• observing that the building was bulging or leaning to the south
  

These quotes have been posted to this forum numerous times. I don't remember any of the CD proponents having an explanation for them. For those short on time a les extensive compilation of such quotes can be found on the page linked below. They start about 1/4 of the way down starting with this quote

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out...."

http://debunking911.com/pull.htm

[Len Colby]

The "fault" if any is mine. Jim asked me to do the photo section on a very rush

basis after the book was already typeset, and the publisher insisted on a photo

section. I hurriedly put together the eight page section. The WTC 7 image I chose

was one I had saved several years earlier from a website which had described

the red at the bottom of the building as a fire. There are many similar photos

showing a small fire in the same location, and I hurriedly made the assumption

that the site I saved the image from was correct. The red object is a sculpture

by Alexander Calder (see image). Either the text or photo will be modified in the

next printing, if any. I will notify Jim of the change.

If this is the ONLY fault Professor Thompson can find in Jim's excellent book,

we are in good shape indeed, since this is a minor error of the nit-picky kind.

I must assume that Professor Thompson could find no errors of greater magnitude

than this.

Jack

Jack if one pays minimal attention to the photo they can see that the supposed flame isn't even in the building! This is is of course only the most recent embarrassing blunder on your part to come to light. Previous ones were misidentifying the Pentagon impact point, calling the WFC Winter Garden a toppled over building, calling reflections of WFC 3 in the windows of WTC 6 flames and saying that an engine part that was obviously in front of a trash basket was actually inside it.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Interesting, Jack. Thanks for letting me know. For more interesting discussion of WTC-7,

try http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008...racies_iii.html . I must admit that, over

the years, I have found his posts so repetitive and boring that I find it difficult to read them.

Professor Fetzer has not chosen to reply to my claim that he published a photo in his latest book which was taken months or years before 9/11 with a caption claiming to show that it was taken during the attack on the Twin Towers." The caption to a photo of WTC-7 to be found on page 78 of his book reads: "WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at ground level." The "modest fire at ground level" is in fact a modern sculpture on the promenade level installed years before 9/11. Thanks to a suggestion from Len Colby I've learned how to post photos on "photobucket.com." I hope this works. Below you will find (1) a photo of the page from Fetzer's book, (2) a close-up of the photo of WTC-7 which he published on that page, and (3) an aerial photo taken in 1999 which shows clearly that that he calls "a modest fire at ground level" is really the modern sculpture I mentioned above.

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...on/scan0003.jpg

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...on/scan0005.jpg

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...ompson/scan.jpg

Since the point is so obvious, it would be expected that Professor Fetzer would admit the error or offer some kind of defense.

Josiah Thompson

The "fault" if any is mine. Jim asked me to do the photo section on a very rush

basis after the book was already typeset, and the publisher insisted on a photo

section. I hurriedly put together the eight page section. The WTC 7 image I chose

was one I had saved several years earlier from a website which had described

the red at the bottom of the building as a fire. There are many similar photos

showing a small fire in the same location, and I hurriedly made the assumption

that the site I saved the image from was correct. The red object is a sculpture

by Alexander Calder (see image). Either the text or photo will be modified in the

next printing, if any. I will notify Jim of the change.

If this is the ONLY fault Professor Thompson can find in Jim's excellent book,

we are in good shape indeed, since this is a minor error of the nit-picky kind.

I must assume that Professor Thompson could find no errors of greater magnitude

than this.

Jack

Edited July 5, 2008 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

"I couldn't have said it better. If Silverstein intended to say that he thought it would be best to remove the firefighters, then he would have said - "Maybe the smartest thing to do would be pull them" or - "...pull them out". And he certainly seems to be saying that the building collapsed as a direct result of their decision to "pull it". Why would Silverstein or officials of the NYFD expect (correctly, if the official explanation is true) the building to collapse due to removing the firefighters? I have heard that the building was "creaking" or otherwise showing signs of having it's structural integrity severely compromised. I can recall only one or two witnesses making this claim. If this was in fact the case, it is incumbent on the NIST and FEMA teams to provide adequate verification. It all looks extremely suspicious to me. I also can't shake the impression that Silverstein was deliberately ambiguous in his video statement. It's almost as if he wants to admit that they intentionally brought the building down, while leaving it open to interpretation that the building fell because they pulled the fire fighters out. If he only mean't to say that they made the decision to remove the fire fighters, then why use such a vague term as "pull it", and why use that term in such a way that suggests that the building collapsed as a result of the decision to "pull it"? It's all very odd to say the least."

With all due respect, Charles Drago, I don't think you get the point. Larry Silverstein never talked to "the fire commander" on 9/11. How do we know this? Because the "fire commander," Chief Daniel Nigro, said he never talked to Silverstein. Why did Silverstein say what he said? I don't know but I can guess. Here's my guess.

Nigro and his command staff made the decision not to fight fires in the building in the early afternoon. At that point, Nigro established a "pull-back" or collapse zone around WTC7. Nigro never communicated with Silverstein and would not be expected to. My bet is that someone back at FDNY Headquarters at Metrotech in Brooklyn thought it might be a good idea to tell the owner what was going on. That person communicated to Silverstein that a "pull-back" order had been given and somehow this all gets translated into what Silverstein said.

But all this nit-picking about what "pull" means misses the silliness of the basic claim. That claim is: Larry Silverstein and the Fire Department of the City of New York conspired together to bring down WTC7 with controlled demolitions. This is not just silly but preposterous... about as likely as a herd of reindeer stampeded into the lobby of WTC7 with dynamite in their antlers which then exploded and brought the building down. Rather than worrying details of what Larry Silverstein meant or didn't mean isn't it more useful to look at the basic facts concerning the collapse of this building? Those facts include a modern design which made possible long spans of open office space, a truss system to carry a 30% larger footprint for the building than was initially envisaged, 40,000+ gallons of diesel fuel either in or under the building and fires which grew in intensity and extent over seven and one-half hours.

Why WTC7 collapsed is a question to be answered largely by engineers and fire science professionals. The broad outlines of their answer is contained in the extremely sophisticated reports that are already part of the public record. If one wants to believe that the Bush administration conspired with others to bring this building down, one can believe that. However, it is a kind of belief based on faith and not facts. One doesn't have to be an apologist for the Bush administration to disagree with such a conspiracy theory. One need only be someone who looks for reasonable answers to reasonable questions. I'd always thought that you would count yourself as one of those people.

[Jack White]

Professor Fetzer has not chosen to reply to my claim that he published a photo in his latest book which was taken months or years before 9/11 with a caption claiming to show that it was taken during the attack on the Twin Towers." The caption to a photo of WTC-7 to be found on page 78 of his book reads: "WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at ground level." The "modest fire at ground level" is in fact a modern sculpture on the promenade level installed years before 9/11. Thanks to a suggestion from Len Colby I've learned how to post photos on "photobucket.com." I hope this works. Below you will find (1) a photo of the page from Fetzer's book, (2) a close-up of the photo of WTC-7 which he published on that page, and (3) an aerial photo taken in 1999 which shows clearly that that he calls "a modest fire at ground level" is really the modern sculpture I mentioned above.

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...on/scan0003.jpg

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...on/scan0005.jpg

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...ompson/scan.jpg

Since the point is so obvious, it would be expected that Professor Fetzer would admit the error or offer some kind of defense.

Josiah Thompson

The "fault" if any is mine. Jim asked me to do the photo section on a very rush

basis after the book was already typeset, and the publisher insisted on a photo

section. I hurriedly put together the eight page section. The WTC 7 image I chose

was one I had saved several years earlier from a website which had described

the red at the bottom of the building as a fire. There are many similar photos

showing a small fire in the same location, and I hurriedly made the assumption

that the site I saved the image from was correct. The red object is a sculpture

by Alexander Calder (see image). Either the text or photo will be modified in the

next printing, if any. I will notify Jim of the change.

If this is the ONLY fault Professor Thompson can find in Jim's excellent book,

we are in good shape indeed, since this is a minor error of the nit-picky kind.

I must assume that Professor Thompson could find no errors of greater magnitude

than this.

Jack

I just sent Dr. Fetzer a different photo showing a small fire on the ninth floor.

It will replace the other photo in the next printing, expected in the near future.

I trust that with the correction of this minor error, the book will now be error-free.

If so, this endorsement by Dr. Thompson is extraordinary. Thanks.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

My bet is you're thinking of a fire on the 12th floor. If you want to send it to me, I'll tell you if you got it right this time.

Actually, there's very little in the book about WTC-7 and what's there is wrong. Mostly the book is filled with windage of a social-political sort. Apparently, you missed the fact that in another of your captions you claim that "the official story claims that the diesel fuel reservoirs in the building exploded" when no one... official or not... ever claimed this. I corrected this error of yours in my first post but you either missed it or chose to ignore it. And I could go on... and on... and on. Why do you and Fetzer continue to produce such sloppy work?

Professor Fetzer has not chosen to reply to my claim that he published a photo in his latest book which was taken months or years before 9/11 with a caption claiming to show that it was taken during the attack on the Twin Towers." The caption to a photo of WTC-7 to be found on page 78 of his book reads: "WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at ground level." The "modest fire at ground level" is in fact a modern sculpture on the promenade level installed years before 9/11. Thanks to a suggestion from Len Colby I've learned how to post photos on "photobucket.com." I hope this works. Below you will find (1) a photo of the page from Fetzer's book, (2) a close-up of the photo of WTC-7 which he published on that page, and (3) an aerial photo taken in 1999 which shows clearly that that he calls "a modest fire at ground level" is really the modern sculpture I mentioned above.

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...on/scan0003.jpg

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...on/scan0005.jpg

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk351/J...ompson/scan.jpg

Since the point is so obvious, it would be expected that Professor Fetzer would admit the error or offer some kind of defense.

Josiah Thompson

The "fault" if any is mine. Jim asked me to do the photo section on a very rush

basis after the book was already typeset, and the publisher insisted on a photo

section. I hurriedly put together the eight page section. The WTC 7 image I chose

was one I had saved several years earlier from a website which had described

the red at the bottom of the building as a fire. There are many similar photos

showing a small fire in the same location, and I hurriedly made the assumption

that the site I saved the image from was correct. The red object is a sculpture

by Alexander Calder (see image). Either the text or photo will be modified in the

next printing, if any. I will notify Jim of the change.

If this is the ONLY fault Professor Thompson can find in Jim's excellent book,

we are in good shape indeed, since this is a minor error of the nit-picky kind.

I must assume that Professor Thompson could find no errors of greater magnitude

than this.

Jack

I just sent Dr. Fetzer a different photo showing a small fire on the ninth floor.

It will replace the other photo in the next printing, expected in the near future.

I trust that with the correction of this minor error, the book will now be error-free.

If so, this endorsement by Dr. Thompson is extraordinary. Thanks.

Jack

[Jack White]

Numerous websites mention DIESEL TANK EXPLOSIONS...for instance this one:

..........

What Caused Building 7's Collapse?

This question would appear to be the greatest in engineering history. In over 100 years of experience with steel-framed buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure.

What was done to answer this most important question? The only official body that admits to having investigated the curious collapse of Building 7 is FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), which blamed fires for the collapse but admitted to being clueless about how fires caused the collapse.

People who have seen buildings implode in controlled demolitions are unlikely to be as challenged as FEMA's team in understanding the cause of Building 7's collapse. They will notice, upon watching the videos, that Building 7's collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled demolition.

Despite having the appearance of a controlled demolition, is it possible that Building 7 could have been destroyed by some combination of damage from tower debris, fuel tank explosions, and fires? Let's consider the possible scenarios.

NIST released a photograph in 2005 showing a large gouge in the lower portion of the southwest corner of Building 7, and its collapse scenario deviates significantly from FEMA's in emphasizing alleged structural damage from the collapse of the North Tower. That photograph is notable for its lack of corroboration, and NIST's claims of other regions of damage to the building's south face lack substantiating evidence. Even if NIST's claims about structural damage from North Tower debris were true, it would not begin to explain the precipitous, symmetrical manner in which Building 7 collapsed. Structural damage to the south side -- particularly to the lower stories -- would have made any kind of vertical collapse all the more unlikely.

The idea that diesel fuel stored in Building 7 is to blame for the collapse was promoted by The New York Times in late 2001 and by FEMA's 2002 Building Performance Study. 1 This idea is also untenable. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

Any debris from the towers impacting Building 7 would have hit its south side, and any columns damaged by it would almost certainly be perimeter columns on its south side. Any fuel tank explosion would only be able to damage nearby structure. The rapid fall-off of blast pressures with distance from the source would preclude any such event from breaking all of the columns in the building.

Building 7 was about 5 times as tall as it was deep. (Furthermore the very idea of a tank of diesel fuel exploding taxes the imagination, since diesel fuel does not even begin to boil below 320º F. 2 ) Fires have never been known to damage steel columns in high-rise buildings, but if they could, the damage would be produced gradually and would be localized to the areas where the fire was the most intense.

No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions, and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode. The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth. Any asymmetry in the extent and timing of the damage would cause such a building to topple.

References

1. Engineers are Baffled Over the Collapse of 7 WTC, New York Times, 11/29/01 [cached]

2. DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS PIERCE TRANSIT DIESEL FUEL, ptbus.pierce.wa.us, [cached]

page last modified: 2007-01-25

VERSION 1.64 2007-11-28 ------------- Copyright 2003-07, WTC7.net ------------- fair use notice

[Josiah Thompson]

Your caption reads, "The official story claims that diesel fuel reservoirs in the building exploded, resulting in fires that brought the building down.." Sorry but that statement is simply, irrevocably wrong! That some unnamed web site lists "fuel tank explosion" as a possible cause only to reject it just doesn't pass muster. Why not just say, "Gee, I guess that was another error. Thanks for telling me about it."? Why again and again do you insist on defending the indefensible instead of simply admitting you were wrong?

And the fire you think was on the 9th floor? Want to send it to me for checking or take the chance on being wrong a third time?

quote name='Jack White' date='Jul 5 2008, 05:58 AM' post='149060']

Numerous websites mention DIESEL TANK EXPLOSIONS...for instance this one:

..........

What Caused Building 7's Collapse?

This question would appear to be the greatest in engineering history. In over 100 years of experience with steel-framed buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure.

What was done to answer this most important question? The only official body that admits to having investigated the curious collapse of Building 7 is FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), which blamed fires for the collapse but admitted to being clueless about how fires caused the collapse.

People who have seen buildings implode in controlled demolitions are unlikely to be as challenged as FEMA's team in understanding the cause of Building 7's collapse. They will notice, upon watching the videos, that Building 7's collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled demolition.

Despite having the appearance of a controlled demolition, is it possible that Building 7 could have been destroyed by some combination of damage from tower debris, fuel tank explosions, and fires? Let's consider the possible scenarios.

NIST released a photograph in 2005 showing a large gouge in the lower portion of the southwest corner of Building 7, and its collapse scenario deviates significantly from FEMA's in emphasizing alleged structural damage from the collapse of the North Tower. That photograph is notable for its lack of corroboration, and NIST's claims of other regions of damage to the building's south face lack substantiating evidence. Even if NIST's claims about structural damage from North Tower debris were true, it would not begin to explain the precipitous, symmetrical manner in which Building 7 collapsed. Structural damage to the south side -- particularly to the lower stories -- would have made any kind of vertical collapse all the more unlikely.

The idea that diesel fuel stored in Building 7 is to blame for the collapse was promoted by The New York Times in late 2001 and by FEMA's 2002 Building Performance Study. 1 This idea is also untenable. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

Any debris from the towers impacting Building 7 would have hit its south side, and any columns damaged by it would almost certainly be perimeter columns on its south side. Any fuel tank explosion would only be able to damage nearby structure. The rapid fall-off of blast pressures with distance from the source would preclude any such event from breaking all of the columns in the building.

Building 7 was about 5 times as tall as it was deep. (Furthermore the very idea of a tank of diesel fuel exploding taxes the imagination, since diesel fuel does not even begin to boil below 320º F. 2 ) Fires have never been known to damage steel columns in high-rise buildings, but if they could, the damage would be produced gradually and would be localized to the areas where the fire was the most intense.

No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions, and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode. The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth. Any asymmetry in the extent and timing of the damage would cause such a building to topple.

References

1. Engineers are Baffled Over the Collapse of 7 WTC, New York Times, 11/29/01 [cached]

2. DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS PIERCE TRANSIT DIESEL FUEL, ptbus.pierce.wa.us, [cached]

page last modified: 2007-01-25

VERSION 1.64 2007-11-28 ------------- Copyright 2003-07, WTC7.net ------------- fair use notice

[Len Colby]

I'm not aware of anyone saying the NYPD did bring down [or even could have brought down] any building. Some few might have known or been warned of impending collapse by those who knew 'why' and 'how' - or it could have been a very strange guess, based on the fact that no such building had EVER collapsed due to fire.

Not the PD the FD. Silverstein said "They [i.e. the FDNY] made that decision to pull" so if your interpretation of his words that he meant 'pull the building' rather than 'pull the operation' it follows that he meant "[the FDNY] made the decision to pull [down 7 WTC]". "Truthers other than Alex Jones and his minions refuse to deal with this inconvenient fact. As a link I posted in a thread shows the repulsive Austian does take this notion to its logical conclusion and on several occasions has accused the FDNY of bringing down building 7. Jason Bemas from Loose Change doesn't go quite so far, he only accuses tem of complicity after the fact.

If you had bothered to look at the contrary evidence (which you never seem to do) you would have sen the FDNY had been predicting for hours the building would collapse for reasons Tink, Evan, others and I have brought to the forums attention ad infinium on this thread and others

[Charles Drago]

"I couldn't have said it better. If Silverstein intended to say that he thought it would be best to remove the firefighters, then he would have said - "Maybe the smartest thing to do would be pull them" or - "...pull them out". And he certainly seems to be saying that the building collapsed as a direct result of their decision to "pull it". Why would Silverstein or officials of the NYFD expect (correctly, if the official explanation is true) the building to collapse due to removing the firefighters? I have heard that the building was "creaking" or otherwise showing signs of having it's structural integrity severely compromised. I can recall only one or two witnesses making this claim. If this was in fact the case, it is incumbent on the NIST and FEMA teams to provide adequate verification. It all looks extremely suspicious to me. I also can't shake the impression that Silverstein was deliberately ambiguous in his video statement. It's almost as if he wants to admit that they intentionally brought the building down, while leaving it open to interpretation that the building fell because they pulled the fire fighters out. If he only mean't to say that they made the decision to remove the fire fighters, then why use such a vague term as "pull it", and why use that term in such a way that suggests that the building collapsed as a result of the decision to "pull it"? It's all very odd to say the least."

With all due respect, Charles Drago, I don't think you get the point. Larry Silverstein never talked to "the fire commander" on 9/11. How do we know this? Because the "fire commander," Chief Daniel Nigro, said he never talked to Silverstein. Why did Silverstein say what he said? I don't know but I can guess.

Dear Dr. Thompson,

Please know that since, as a young teenager, I read the "Look" magazine number in which Six Seconds in Dallas was excerpted, I have harbored the utmost respect for your groundbreaking work on the assassination of JFK.

In regard to the issue at hand, I would make two simple points.

1. My two previous posts on this thread were not written in support of any WTC7 collapse theory. Nor did they address or otherwise seek to confirm, deny, or analyze any conversations or statements with and by Larry Silverstein other than the taped interview in which he makes the "pull it" comment.

Thus the relevance to my argument of a Silverstein/Nigro exchange is nil.

The focus of my attention was the wtc7lies website page on which are found what I am forced to conclude are intentionally disingenuous "analyses" of the use of the verb to pull when made within the context of controlled demolition terms of art.

Period.

If your reading of the web page in question differs from mine, by all means share your thoughts.

2. The positioning of the above-reproduced paragraphs from your post gives the erroneous impression that I am the source of the quotation that makes up your initial paragraph. (This other-than-artful construction likely accounts for your confusion regarding my relatively narrowly focused posts.)

In fact you are quoting Brian Smith.

Regards,

Charles

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

These are excellent comments that appear to be "right on target"! Jack has found a replacement photograph that we will use in the second

printing of THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY. Thanks to Tink for noticing. But that does not turn modest fires into major infernos nor a controlled

demolition into anything else. Take another look at "This is an Orange" if you have any doubts. He's practicing his special brand of fakery.

UPI, “Tinkering with the official fictions,” 4 July 2008, p.1:

Josiah Thompson, the discredited one-time lead salesman for the fraudulent Zapruder film, today conceded that Larry Silverstein did indeed mean “collapse the tower deliberately” when he remarked “pull it.”

The admission came in the opening post of yet another Thompsonian thread devoted to his obsessive pursuit of Professor James Fetzer, the prominent 9/11 and Zapruder film dissident. It was all the more unexpected given Thompson’s presumed intention to debunk, not reinforce, conspiratorial interpretations of Silverstein’s shocking confession:

For years, Fetzer has been trading on the interview Larry Silverstein gave a few months after 9/11. In this interview, Silverstein said he talked to “the fire commander” on the afternoon of 9/11. Given the massive loss of life earlier that day, Silverstien said he told the fire commander “to pull it.” Fetzer misinterprets “pull it” to be a term of art in demolition circles meaning “bring down the building with controlled demolitions.” As countless internet sites have already shown, “pull it” in demolition-speak means what you would think it would mean: “attach a cable to a supporting beam and pull it.

Experts are divided over the motivation and purpose of Thompson’s rare flirtation with a near- truth. “Simple incompetence,” one Langley veteran sighed, “and not remotely credible as an alternative explanation.” Others were less charitable, but preferred to remain anonymous given Thompson’s connections: “He’s lost it completely,” commented one such poster, hastily adding “a whole team of firemen, that is.”

Nor was this his only significant gaff in the course of the same thread. Elsewhere, he deprived official whitewashers of one important source of fire driving the alleged “spontaneous” collapse favoured by his masters.

What about “the modest fire at street level?” Well, that turns out to be a colorful modernist sculpture in bright orange, yellow and red that had been placed there on the mezzanine level years before 9/11.

One lasting consequence of Thompson’s bizarrely ill-considered reintervention in the case is widely bruited: He’ll lose his post as lead investigator in a suit launched against Silverstein. The legal action has been brought as part of a classic CIA wedge-and-flip operation designed to divide 9/11 dissidents from the victims; portray the dissidents as aligned with Silverstein and the bankers; and simultaneously vindicate the establishment’s fiction of collapse through fire and debris damage. “It’s a damn shame,” remarked the same veteran CIA observer, “particularly since he gained such experience of a similar op back in ’67.”

If – when – Thompson does lose the job, his second-in-command is universally regarded as certain to step up. Monsieur Closeau is widely admired in powerful circles for his inability to solve a quick crossword, never mind unravel a complex CIA covert operation.