Welcome to the Center for Cooperative Research forum. This forum is intended to enable additional collaboration and facilitate the sharing of information, which is what this site is all about. Any questions / suggestions / criticisms regarding the site in general are also welcome.

Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE AUTHORS OF FEMA'S WTC REPORT LIED?
Posted by: TheTruth (IP Logged)
Date: April 11, 2004 05:03AM

The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) Report
into the collapse of World Trade Center Seven is a Total Joke.


World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. On the contrary, it appears the collapse was due primarily due to a controlled demolition. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings. Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire.

On September 11, WTC 7 collapsed totally. It is suggested below that this collapse was exclusively due to fire. No significant evidence is offered to back up this suggestion (after all it is only a suggestion). It should be emphasized that WTC 7 was neither hit by an aircraft nor by significant quantities of debris from the collapse of the twin towers. It is also widely claimed that WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed mainly due to fire. I emphasize, that before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.




As you can see from the above animated graphic, the collapse of WTC 7 certainly has the appearance of a controlled demolition. But, judge for yourself, download and watch the following short video clips and a larger version of the animated-gif:

A Video of the collapse of WTC 7. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7big.rm
Another video of the collapse of WTC 7. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/7collapse.avi
And another video of the collapse of WTC 7. http://ontario.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/wtc-7_collapse.mpg
And yet another video of the collapse of WTC 7. http://www.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/wtc-7_cbs.mpg
A larger (3.3 MB) version of the above animated-gif. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc-7_1_.gif

If you wish to save the small animated-gif, right click on the image and select Save Image As from the menu. You can also view some short sequences of still shots from the videos by clicking here (620 KB). The most obvious feature that indicates a controlled demolition, is the almost even collapse of the building. This shows that all the supports for the structure failed at the same time. Some coincidence eh? This video evidence is so compelling that no other evidence is really necessary.

Notice, that all of the many videos of the collapse of World Trade Center Seven have been taken from the north. Many cameras were "accidently" trained on the building to capture its collapse (just like a camera was "accidently" available to capture the first planes impact with the North Tower). Also note that the raging fires of WTC 7 are for some reason not visible in these videos taken from the north. Apparently, only the southern side of WTC 7 was a blazing inferno. Yes, they really expect you to believe that only one half of the building burnt, and that this half burnt so furiously, that the whole building collapsed. How is it that there are no videos of the collapse from the southern side? How is it that there are no videos or photographs of the raging fires (that curiously only burnt on the southern side) of the building? Of course, the simplest answer is that there was no raging fire and that you are being lied to.


See Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC Seven (with comment) for the missing section.

Figure 5-17 (below) Building damage to the southwest corner and smoke plume from south face of WTC 7, looking from the World Financial Plaza. Note damage to WFC 3 in the foreground.



Figure 5-17 is a very strange photograph. It has a number of features which immediately stand out as wrong.
[list][*]Firstly, we are told that there were fires on the floors 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28, but the photo seems to have smoke pouring out of the windows on almost every floor.

[*]Secondly, the corner offices (except for the 27th and 28th floors) show no indication of fire on the west face of the building, but these very same corner offices appear to belch smoke from their south face windows.

[*]Thirdly, the north side of WTC 7 has few (if any) visible signs of fire at this time (for example, see Figure 5-20 below) so it seems quite impossible that the south side should be ablaze to the extent that the above photo would indicate.[/list]
All, in all, I think it quite clear that either this photo has been faked, or it is actually a picture of the dust cloud from the collapse of WTC 1. I think the second option is more probable, as it fits all the facts and allows the "oh, it looks like we made a mistake, so sorry" excuse. The dust cloud has been given its peculiar shape by the breeze channeling through the gap between the Verizon building and WTC 7.


See Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC Seven (with comment) for the missing section.

News coverage after 1:30 p.m. showed light-colored smoke flowing out of openings on the upper floors of the south side of the building. Another photograph (Figure 5-18) of the skyline at 3:25 p.m., taken from the southwest, shows a large volume of dark smoke coming from all but the lowest levels of WTC 7, where white smoke is emanating.



Figure 5-18 WTC 7, with a large volume of dark smoke rising from it, just visible behind WFC 1 (left). A much smaller volume of white smoke is seen rising from the base of WTC 7. Note that the lower, lighter-colored smoke (to right) is thought to be from the two collapsed towers

This photo amply demonstrates the dishonesty of the authors of this article (and of the FEMA report generally). It must have taken them some time to find a photo as misleading as this one. But since deception is the name of the game the effort to find such pictures was made.

What is so deceitful about the use of this photo, you ask?

Note that the corners of various buildings in the photo line up (WFC 1 and WTC 7 line up as do the Bankers Trust building and the apartment building in the center of the photo). These corners have been marked by red dots in the aerial photograph of Manhattan below. Draw lines through these dots and where they cross is where the photo was snapped. So we see that the above photo was taken from a boat on the Hudson and that in order to see the smoke from WTC 7 we have to look through the thick smoke from the ruins of WTC 1 and WTC 2. Very deceitful indeed.




The mode of fire and smoke spread was unclear; however, it may have been propagated through interior shafts, between floors along the south facade that may have been damaged, or other internal openings, as well as the floor slab/exterior facade connections.

It appeared that water on site was limited due to a 20-inch broken water main in Vesey Street. This is an outright lie. This is Manhattan, more fire hydrants per square meter than any other place on earth. Although WTC 7 was sprinklered, it did not appear that there would have been a sufficient quantity of water to control the growth and spread of the fires on multiple floors. Crap, there was plenty of water. In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. The people who told the firefighters not to put out the small localized fires in WTC 7 should be held liable and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That the decision was made because of damage to WTC 7 is a joke. The extent and severity of the damage to WTC 7 was so slight that it is still unknown to this day. If there had been major damage the authors of this article would have provided evidence of it. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.

See Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC Seven (with comment) for the missing section.

Not only is it claimed that the fire burnt for 7 hours, but the hundreds of photographers who were taking photos of the ruins of the Twin Towers, never bothered to photograph this "raging" 7 hour fire at World Trade Center Seven, which was, after all, just across the street (Vesey St). I guess that a "raging" fire in a 47-story building, is such a commonplace occurrence in New York, that these photographers just ignored it, even though it was only a few hundred feet away from some of them. They just couldn't see a good story in it.

See Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC Seven (with comment) for the missing section.

So we have been presented with the following absurd story:

1). Power to the Twin Towers was wired from the substation in WTC 7 through two separate systems. The first provided power throughout each building; the second provided power only to the emergency systems. In the event of fire, power would only be provided to the emergency systems. This was to prevent arcing electric lines igniting new fires and to reduce the risk of firefighters being electrocuted. There were also six 1,200 kW emergency power generators located in the sixth basement (B-6) level of the towers, which provided a backup power supply. These also had normal and emergency subsystems.
2). Previous to the collapse of the South Tower, the power to the towers was switched to the emergency subsystem to provide power for communications equipment, elevators, emergency lighting in corridors and stairwells, and fire pumps and safety for firefighters. At this time power was still provided by the WTC 7 substation.
3). Con Ed reported that "the feeders supplying power to WTC 7 were de-energized at 9:59 a.m.". This was due to the South Tower collapse which occurred at the same time.
4). Unfortunately, even though the main power system for the towers was switched off and WTC 7 had been evacuated, a design flaw allowed generators (designed to supply backup power for the WTC complex) to start up and resume an unnecessary and unwanted power supply.
5). Unfortunately, debris from the collapse of the north tower (the closest tower) fell across the building known as World Trade Center Six, and then across Vesey Street, and then impacted WTC 7 which is (at closest) 355 feet away from the north tower.
6). Unfortunately, some of this debris penetrated the outer wall of WTC 7, smashed half way through the building, demolishing a concrete masonry wall (in the north half of the building) and then breached a fuel oil pipe that ran across the building just to the north of the masonry wall.
7). Unfortunately, though most of the falling debris was cold, it manages to start numerous fires in WTC 7.
8). Unfortunately, even with the outbreak of numerous fires in the building, no decision was made to turn off the generators now supplying electricity to WTC 7. Fortunately, for the firefighters, someone did make the decision not to fight and contain the fires while they were still small, but to wait until the fires were large and out of control. Otherwise, many firefighters may have been electrocuted while fighting the fires.
9). Unfortunately, the safety mechanism that should have shut down the fuel oil pumps (which were powered by electricity) upon the breaching of the fuel line, failed to work and fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the Salomon Smith Barney tanks on the ground floor onto the 5th floor where it ignited. The pumps eventually emptied the tanks, pumping some 12,000 gallons in all.). Unfortunately, the sprinkler system of WTC 7 malfunctioned and did not extinguish the fires.
10). Unfortunately, the burning diesel heated trusses one and two to the point that they lost their structural integrity.
11). Unfortunately, this then (somehow) caused the whole building to collapse, even though before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire.

You must agree, it is absurd, isn't it?


Or perhaps you would prefer Eric Hufschmid's version of events:

World Trade Center Seven crumbled to the same, fine-grain powder, but it was never hit by any airplane. Supposedly one or two large tanks of diesel fuel inside the building caught on fire.

Incidently, you might wonder how the diesel tanks caught on fire. Try to devise a sensible explanation for this, or, since not many people care about Building 7, at least an amusing explanation.

For example, perhaps when the plane hit the South tower, a few office workers were sprayed with fuel, caught on fire, were blown out of the building, traveled over Building 6 and then across the road to Building 7, broke through the windows, busted through a few walls until their dead bodies reached the stairs, rolled down the stairs while still on fire, broke through a few more walls to where the tanks of diesel fuel were located, and then came to rest under the tanks where their smoldering polyester suits and nylon undergarments cooked the tanks until they burst open.


See Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC Seven (with comment) for the missing section.

5.8 Conclusion:

This report (the FEMA report) is a JOKE.


The original FEMA report can be found here.
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/
http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/
http://guardian.150m.com
http://guardian.250free.com

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE AUTHORS OF FEMA'S WTC REPORT LIED?
Posted by: TheTruth (IP Logged)
Date: May 31, 2004 05:32PM

So why do you suppose that at a discussion board specifically designed for the investigation of 911, not a single person is interested in discussing 911. Of course the answer is simple.

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." V. I. Lenin.

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE AUTHORS OF FEMA'S WTC REPORT LIED?
Posted by: qwerty1 (IP Logged)
Date: June 3, 2004 08:45AM

Having been to the WTC 6pm sept 11th till 8pm sept 14th.....I watched 7 WTC fall from less then 300 yards away, guess what..it was on fire...it was a BIG fire, and being a firefighter and seeing WTC7 burn it was very easy to see why it came down like it did.fig-5-17 any firefighter with 6 months of time on the job can figure out whats going on in the building and its not even thinkable to enter that building at that time AND FDNY JUST LOST 342 Firefighters, how many more did you want to die to protect a lost building????..The Photos around the web dont even come close to the number of photos taken maybe 10% get on the web, I alone have 600 photos of the first 3 days, but posting to the web was not what i took them for.a friend of mine in NJ who was there has over 2000 photos of everything starting 15 min after the 2nd plane hit, he had to run from the collapse. So your information is loosly based on a few photos,poor information and a few thoughs of one or two people, not even close to good enough to come up with what you have said here, It looks like you put alot of time into this, its good to have a hobby.

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE AUTHORS OF FEMA'S WTC REPORT LIED?
Posted by: photophreak (IP Logged)
Date: June 3, 2004 01:22PM

Quote:
I watched 7 WTC fall from less then 300 yards away, guess what..it was on fire...it was a BIG fire, and being a firefighter and seeing WTC7 burn it was very easy to see why it came down like it did.fig-5-17 any firefighter with 6 months of time on the job can figure out whats going on in the building


Wonderful, you were there and you are a firefighter.
Could you please explain what's going on in the building?
Thanks!


Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Dear qwertyl
Posted by: John Doe (IP Logged)
Date: June 7, 2004 12:55AM

I really appreciate to have a firefighter and an eyewitness here in this forum!
Yo state that a firefighter with six month experience could easily explain what happened to WTC 7. Frankly I'm a bit atonished. Taking inton consideration that never a steel-framed building collapsed [New York Times, 29.11.01], (and certainly you do remember cases like the 1 New York Plaza Fire, the First Interstate Bank Building Fire and the One Meridian Plaza Firem Amazing fires but the building didn't collapse. CNN only reported at 4:10 a fire in WTC 7 and a member of the investigating team wondered "What the hell would burn so fiercely for seven hours that the Fire Department would be afraid to fight it?" [New York Times, 02.03.02]. Even the FEMA report doesn't mention what you witnessed. Even the FEMA report concludes very shyly: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time." [FEMA-Report, Chapter 5, p. 31]. The video that photocreak inserted is by far not the only one that shows a collapse with the speed of gravitation. There are several others from different angles and different television station. Moreover no journal, no television nor the FEMA (which studied a hugh amount of photos talk about an infernal fire that maybe maybe could explain a collapse.... So you say you have 600 photos and your friend even more. You criticise that in the INternet there are only 10% of the existing photos. So please insert your photos here or make them accessable. Then we would have a basis we can talk about. I would very much appreciate it and I guess I'm not the only one.

John Doe


Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
qwerty1 is a LIAR.
Posted by: TheTruth (IP Logged)
Date: June 11, 2004 09:27PM

qwerty1 says -- Having been to the WTC 6pm sept 11th till 8pm sept 14th..... I watched 7 WTC fall from less then 300 yards away,

So you say, but I say you are a LIAR.

guess what.. it was on fire...

Really? So what? Everyone has seen pictures of the small localized fires. Everyone knows it was on fire.

it was a BIG fire,

So you will tell us how big each of the fires were, on which floors they were, and don't forget to mention which side of the building they were on.

and being a firefighter and seeing WTC7 burn it was very easy to see why it came down like it did.

This is the point where you prove you are a LIAR. The reason is simple - Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire, and here you are not at all surprised when one collapses (due to fire) right in front of you.

Any firefighter with 6 months of time on the job could tell you that no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire (and would have been very surprised when one did).


fig-5-17 any firefighter with 6 months of time on the job can figure out whats going on in the building and its not even thinkable to enter that building at that time

You say "its not even thinkable to enter that building at that time." Why? Why is it not thinkable?

AND FDNY JUST LOST 342 Firefighters, how many more did you want to die to protect a lost building????..

"a lost building????" What do you mean? Why was it lost? Tell us exactly why you thought it was lost and when you thought this.

The Photos around the web dont even come close to the number of photos taken maybe 10% get on the web, I alone have 600 photos of the first 3 days, but posting to the web was not what i took them for a friend of mine in NJ who was there has over 2000 photos of everything starting 15 min after the 2nd plane hit, he had to run from the collapse.

You have 600 photos -- post them all and tell us where. Arrange for cooperativeresearch.org to publish them. Go on, prove the impossible -- that you are not a LIAR.

So your information is loosly based on a few photos, poor information and a few thoughs of one or two people, not even close to good enough to come up with what you have said here, It looks like you put alot of time into this, its good to have a hobby.

Did you read the main article which is based on FEMAs report -- which is linked to in FIVE places in the article -- didn't think so.

The real question is why this above LIAR bothered to LIE. Any guesses?



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 06/11/04 09:29PM by TheTruth.

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message
Re: EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE AUTHORS OF FEMA'S WTC REPORT LIED?
Posted by: photophreak (IP Logged)
Date: June 12, 2004 08:10AM

Unless qwerty1 produces some evidence, I'd lean toward assuming he's either a spook or a measly right-wing crank.

Options: Reply To This MessageQuote This MessageReport This Message


Goto: Forum ListMessage ListSearchLog In
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.