also, the pic with corner damage that the nutjobs showed was proven to be photoshopped. gosh, i wonder if S&B's Kerry will follow up on this.. well guess what? we will !!!
Another view- http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi Note the blue sky to the right of 7 - which happens to be the WTC 5 & 6 side. Explain how smoke from 5&6 can cross that gap and remain invisible, only to become visible again and appear to be coming from 7.....
after listening to the clip twice, i dont think kerry was talking about WTC 7. in fact he doesnt really know what he is talking about. i believe he is referring to the remaining standing structures at the base of the WTC which resembled skeletal walls. i was in nyc on 9/11, and i worked across the street from the WTC and visited the ruins 1 week after the attacks and there were many "walls" that were several stories high that were still standing which were eventually torn down. this is what i believe kerry is referring to. and yes i do believe WTC 7 was intentionally brought down but this is not the smoking gun that proves it.
Larry Silverstein's retraction (or clarification) of his 'pull it' comments are so sketchy. He tried to say by 'pull it' he meant pull the firefighters out of the building, but there weren't any in there as far as i can find - besides 'pull it' being industry jargon for a controlled demolition the building looked like a perfect demo, corroborated by many demolition experts. historically, steel reinforced buildings don't collapse from fire... they burn down to the frame what gives? the moderate amount of fire inside that building... caused it to collapse perfectly in on itself?
Its obvious WTC#7 was a demo. Small fire, squibs during collapse, crimp during collapse, PERFECT collapse. Collapse at freefall. VIP's in the know admit controlled demo. Doesn't get more smoking gun than that.
It contradicts Bitstream's statement that the heavy smoke came from 5&6. So no strawman, just some misunderstanding on your part Many debate the fires, so that's a lie..... Firemen on the scene say there was plenty of fire, and they expected it to fail from the fires and amount of physical damage sustained from the collapse of the towers..... http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 oâclock in the afternoon, but by about 2 oâclock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and thatâs probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didnât make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7â did you have to get all of those people out? Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didnât want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasnât even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didnât know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 oâclock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, thatâs a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean thatâs a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didnât seem so bad. But thatâs what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didnât want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody⦠My feeling early on was we werenât going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didnât make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldnât go further north on West Street. And I couldnât go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html No debate, eh?