Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse

[Galileo]

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse

Giant flames engulf every floor of 44-story building and it remains standing, yet limited fires across just 8 floors of WTC 7 brought down building within 7 seconds on 9/11. How can NIST’s “new phenomenon” explain this one?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fire-consumes-wtc-7-size-skyscraper-building-does-not-collapse.html

I guess steel buildings in China don't get "thermal expansion" like they do here, eh?

[doobs]

Local man takes huge dump, does not flush down toilet

[Blake]

another article from prisonplanet?

yay!

[DarrinS]

JDZBgHBHQT8

[ChumpDumper]

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse

Giant flames engulf every floor of 44-story building and it remains standing, yet limited fires across just 8 floors of WTC 7 brought down building within 7 seconds on 9/11. How can NIST’s “new phenomenon” explain this one?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fire-consumes-wtc-7-size-skyscraper-building-does-not-collapse.html

I guess steel buildings in China don't get "thermal expansion" like they do here, eh?You made assumptions about the construction of the building that were in no news article.

When will you learn that lying doesn't help your cause?

[Galileo]

You made assumptions about the construction of the building that were in no news article.

When will you learn that lying doesn't help your cause?

The Chinese use special anti-thermal action beams for construction!

[Galileo]

I figured it out.

The Chinese didn't put a diesel tank on the 5th floor!

[Blake]

I figured it out.

The Chinese didn't put a diesel tank on the 5th floor!

just curious, who was behind WTC7 falling down?

[Galileo]

just curious, who was behind WTC7 falling down?

I think the people behind WTC 7 got out of the way before it fell.

[Blake]

I think the people behind WTC 7 got out of the way before it fell.

funny.

who was behind the plans to drop the building?

[Galileo]

funny.

who was behind the plans to drop the building?

The terrorists!

[Blake]

The terrorists!

well that was easier than I thought.

[ChumpDumper]

Why did WTC7 need to be destroyed?

[Obstructed_View]

In other news, the building didn't have debris from the next door 110 foot towers hitting it when they collapsed. :lol

[Obstructed_View]

Why did WTC7 need to be destroyed?

It didn't, but you can't suggest that towers one and two were brought down in a controlled demolition if you acknowledge that tower seven collapsed within its own footprint, because it kills the conspiracy theory that it's impossible for a building to collapse that way if it happened the same day right across the street.

[Galileo]

In other news, the building didn't have debris from the next door 110 foot towers hitting it when they collapsed. :lol

You talking about the building in China. No, it didn't fall. Shoulda, though.

[ChumpDumper]

You talking about the building in China. No, it didn't fall. Shoulda, though.It shoulda had debris from two 110 story buildings hit it?

You fail to make sense.

[Galileo]

Why did WTC7 need to be destroyed?

Because the terrorists are evil and they hate America.

[ChumpDumper]

Because the terrorists are evil and they hate America.So you have no valid reason.

Fair enough.

[Galileo]

It shoulda had debris from two 110 story buildings hit it?

You fail to make sense.

so the debris knocked over WTC 7? It wasn't thermal expansion anymore?

[ChumpDumper]

so the debris knocked over WTC 7? It wasn't thermal expansion anymore?It certainly didn't help. Without the debris, there are no fires. Without the fires....

Now why did the people you think brought down WTC7 brought down WTC7?

[angrydude]

I think its safe to assume that more than one thing could contribute to a building falling down that by themselves alone may not be sufficient.

[ChumpDumper]

It's also safe to assume that buildings built after the collapse of WTC7 would not be built like WTC7.

[Galileo]

It's also safe to assume that buildings built after the collapse of WTC7 would not be built like WTC7.

why's that? You think people who build skyscrapers actually pay attention to NIST's WTC 7 bullshit.

[ChumpDumper]

why's that? You think people who build skyscrapers actually pay attention to NIST's WTC 7 bullshit.Yes. Very much so.

If you can give me some quotes from people who build skyscrapers that say they regularly ignore the NIST, I would be happy to read them.

[Galileo]

Yes. Very much so.

If you can give me some quotes from people who build skyscrapers that say they regularly ignore the NIST, I would be happy to read them.

give me an example of something built with non-conducting steel.

[ChumpDumper]

give me an example of something built with non-conducting steel.:lol Before you can criticize the NIST report, you need to be able to understand it.

You aren't there yet.

[Galileo]

:lol Before you can criticize the NIST report, you need to be able to understand it.

You aren't there yet.

Galileo is an expert in physics.

[ChumpDumper]

Galileo is an expert in physics.He was, but you are not.

[Galileo]

He was, but you are not.

I AM GALILEO!

[ChumpDumper]

I AM GALILEO!Silly fonts do not make it so.

[Obstructed_View]

You talking about the building in China. No, it didn't fall. Shoulda, though.

There were twin towers that collapsed across the street from the building in China, too? Creepy.

Was the building in China completed in 1979 and full of carpet, office funiture, papers, walls, doors, etc? Oh wait, no it wasn't completed yet and was basically hollow empty rooms with concrete and treated steel.

[Blake]

still waiting for real motive behind the controlled demolition.....


or does motive not matter to you conspiracy hacks?

[RandomGuy]

Because, as we all know, all steel framed buildings are so alike, and all fires are so alike that we can easily compare them as being completely interchangible.

If one burns but does not fall down, it logically follows that no steel-framed building will ever fall down, even if it is actually framed in concrete and not steel. Remember not to look too closely at the specific buildings being compared and try not to notice the concrete holding a good portion of either building up.

So therefore any steel building that burns and falls down must be victim of an evil conspircacy.

How could I have not seen this leap of logic before? :bang

[doobs]

still waiting for real motive behind the controlled demolition.....


or does motive not matter to you conspiracy hacks?

Actually, motive is ALL they have. That's why they get into absurd conspiracy theories . . . because "they" wanted it to happen.

[Galileo]

still waiting for real motive behind the controlled demolition.....


or does motive not matter to you conspiracy hacks?

no motive needs to be alleged or proven to gain a conviction in American courts. Ice-cold killers kill just for the heck of it.

[ChumpDumper]

no motive needs to be alleged or proven to gain a conviction in American courts. Ice-cold killers kill just for the heck of it.This isn't a court, although it's worth noting that nothing you have ever posted would fly in a real trial.

Why would anyone want to destroy WTC7?

[Galileo]

This isn't a court, although it's worth noting that nothing you have ever posted would fly in a real trial.

Why would anyone want to destroy WTC7?

That's not nescessasry to prove that WTC 7 was blown up. I don't care why the derangerd killers did it.

[Blake]

no motive needs to be alleged or proven to gain a conviction in American courts. Ice-cold killers kill just for the heck of it.

so you are saying that terrorists were the ones that got WTC 7 to free fall?

I just wanna be clear before I call you an idiot for no reason.

[doobs]

This isn't a court, although it's worth noting that nothing you have ever posted would fly in a real trial.

Why would anyone want to destroy WTC7?

Enron. D'uh.

[ChumpDumper]

That's not nescessasry to prove that WTC 7 was blown up. I don't care why the derangerd killers did it.I do.

Nobody was killed in the WTC7 collapse, so why destroy it?

[Galileo]

so you are saying that terrorists were the ones that got WTC 7 to free fall?

I just wanna be clear before I call you an idiot for no reason.

Terrorists did it.

[Galileo]

I do.

Nobody was killed in the WTC7 collapse, so why destroy it?

The same terrorists also blew up the Twin Towers, dufus.

[doobs]

The same terrorists also blew up the Twin Towers, dufus.

And who would that be?

[Blake]

The same terrorists also blew up the Twin Towers, dufus.

and killed a bunch of people and spreading fear and so on and so on

please explain how terrorists that are smart enough to wire and detonate an entire building were too stupid to figure out to blow it before all the people left the area?



I'll go ahead and answer for you:

you don't have a clue because you obviously don't realize just what it would take to wire and blow up a building like that with nobody noticing.

you are an idiot.

[Galileo]

And who would that be?

Larry Silverstein.

[Galileo]

and killed a bunch of people and spreading fear and so on and so on

please explain how terrorists that are smart enough to wire and detonate an entire building were too stupid to figure out to blow it before all the people left the area?



I'll go ahead and answer for you:

you don't have a clue because you obviously don't realize just what it would take to wire and blow up a building like that with nobody noticing.

you are an idiot.

You're the idiot.

The terrorists are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Giuliani, and Silverstein.

[Blake]

Larry Silverstein.

if this were a real court, the judge would tell you to hurry the fock up, show your evidence and make your focking conclusion.

[ChumpDumper]

The same terrorists also blew up the Twin Towers, dufus.
No they flew planes into those buildings, and their reasons for doing so are well-known.

Why would anyone want to destroy WTC7?

[Blake]

You're the idiot.

The terrorists are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Giuliani, and Silverstein.

which Bush? Marvin or W?

No, outside of you, I think we all agree that you're the idiot.

[Galileo]

No they flew planes into those buildings, and their reasons for doing so are well-known.

Why would anyone want to destroy WTC7?

We've already gone over this before.

FL93 was supposed to fly into WTC 7, as Giuliani has mentioned.

But FL93 got stuck in the runway for 43 minutes. By the time it was hijacked, it was too late to fly back to NYC, so it was shot down.

So we've got WTC 7 just sitting there loaded with explosives. They blew it up at dusk, before it was too dark to see the light flashes.

[doobs]

We've already gone over this before.

FL93 was supposed to fly into WTC 7, as Giuliani has mentioned.

But FL93 got stuck in the runway for 43 minutes. By the time it was hijacked, it was too late to fly back to NYC, so it was shot down.

So we've got WTC 7 just sitting there loaded with explosives. They blew it up at dusk, before it was too dark to see the light flashes.

Who are "they"? And who hijacked the planes? Silverstein, Giuliani, Bush . . . who else?

Please fill in the blanks, and don't use the passive voice.

[ChumpDumper]

We've already gone over this before.

FL93 was supposed to fly into WTC 7, as Giuliani has mentioned.Rudy never mentioned this.


But FL93 got stuck in the runway for 43 minutes. By the time it was hijacked, it was too late to fly back to NYC, so it was shot down.

So we've got WTC 7 just sitting there loaded with explosives. They blew it up at dusk, before it was too dark to see the light flashes.Silent, hush-a-boom explosions no one heard.

Or saw.

Or planted.

[Galileo]

Rudy never mentioned this.

Silent, hush-a-boom explosions no one heard.

Or saw.

Or planted.

9iu11iani did mention it. He said he didn't go to WTC 7 because another plane was heading towards it.

[ChumpDumper]

9iu11iani did mention it. He said he didn't go to WTC 7 because another plane was heading towards it.No he didn't.

[Galileo]

No he didn't.

He did. Look it up, its in the Terror Timeline.

[ChumpDumper]

He did. Look it up, its in the Terror Timeline.Pretty much everyone thought their tall building might get hit by a plane on 9/11. WTC 7 was evacuated because it made sense to evacuate it.

Now why would anyone want to destroy WTC7?

[ChumpDumper]

Here's a partial list of other buildings evacuated on 9/11.

* the United Nations headquarters in New York City
* the Sears Tower in Chicago
* several skyscrapers in downtown Houston
* the Transamerica building in San Francisco
* the Renaissance Center in Detroit
* in London, Canary Wharf tower and the Stock Exchange Tower
* the Empire State Building

Disneyland was also closed. So now we know that Mickey Mouse was in on it too!

[Galileo]

Pretty much everyone thought their tall building might get hit by a plane on 9/11. WTC 7 was evacuated because it made sense to evacuate it.

Now why would anyone want to destroy WTC7?

Giuliani wasn't in WTC 7.

He said he didn't go to WTC 7 because a third plane [FL93] was headed towards it.

[ChumpDumper]

Giuliani wasn't in WTC 7.

He said he didn't go to WTC 7 because a third plane [FL93] was headed towards it.He said he was told a plane might be headed toward it.

All the other buildings listed thought that planes might be headed toward them as well.

Again, why would anyone want to destroy WTC7?

[Galileo]

He said he was told a plane might be headed toward it.

All the other buildings listed thought that planes might be headed toward them as well.

Again, why would anyone want to destroy WTC7?

Giuliani was supposed to go to the 23rd floor of WTC 7, to the OEMEOC.

He didn't go there because a third plane was headed towards it. You are just monkeying around with semantics because I caught you in another lie.

Guiliani went to a different building instead, that didn't have a plane flying towards it.

[ChumpDumper]

Giuliani was supposed to go to the 23rd floor of WTC 7, to the OEMEOC.

He didn't go there because a third plane was headed towards it. You are just monkeying around with semantics because I caught you in another lie.He was told another hijacked plane might be flying towards New York. The people in Washington thought another plane might be headed there. The Capitol and White House were evacuated.


Guiliani went to a different building instead, that didn't have a plane flying towards it.He went to a mobile command center -- pretty much an armored bus. Nobody really wanted to be in any tall buildings that day, as the list above shows.

[Galileo]

He was told another hijacked plane might be flying towards New York. The people in Washington thought another plane might be headed there. The Capitol and White House were evacuated.

He went to a mobile command center -- pretty much an armored bus. Nobody really wanted to be in any tall buildings that day, as the list above shows.

This was AFTER both the Twin Towers had been hit. The third plane was supposed to be FL93. It never made it.

[ChumpDumper]

This was AFTER both the Twin Towers had been hit.No duh. Had WTC been evacuated at 6 AM, now that would have been suspicious.
The third plane was supposed to be FL93.No evidence supporting its target was WTC7. None whatsoever.

Which brings us back to the original question:

Why would anyone want to destroy WTC7?

[Galileo]

What exactly were they supposed to do with a building filled to the hilt with explosives? Just leave it sit there? Don't you think somebody would have found them?

[ChumpDumper]

What exactly were they supposed to do with a building filled to the hilt with explosives? Just leave it sit there? Don't you think somebody would have found them?There were no explosives planted in WTC7.

[Galileo]

There were no explosives planted in WTC7.

Yes there were. There is video of it being blown up.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes there were. There is video of it being blown up.No there isn't.

Nor was there any trace of explosives at the site.

Nor was there any report of an explosion at the time of collapse.

Nor was there, as your continued evasion of the question shows, any reason to destroy WTC7.

[Galileo]

No there isn't.

Nor was there any trace of explosives at the site.

Nor was there any report of an explosion at the time of collapse.

Nor was there, as your continued evasion of the question shows, any reason to destroy WTC7.

There was a lot of evidence of explosives found, including molton steel, molton metal, thermal hotspots, partially evaporated steel, and bizarre & exotic chemicals.

To go with the evidence of explosives, there are many witnesses who heard explosions.

There would have been more evidence found, but all the steel was shipped to Asia before it could be tested.

There is also a witness who heard a countdown before it fell.

You are in a state of denial.

[ChumpDumper]

There was a lot of evidence of explosives found, including molton steel, molton metal, thermal hotspots, partially evaporated steel, and bizarre & exotic chemicals.That's evidence of a fire. No evidence of explosives.


To go with the evidence of explosives, there are many witnesses who heard explosions.No one reported any explosions right before the collapse.


There would have been more evidence found, but all the steel was shipped to Asia before it could be tested.The steel was inspected on site.


There is also a witness who heard a countdown before it fell.Just one?


You are in a state of denial.You have denied answering a simple question for pages now:

Why would anyone want to bring down WTC7?

[mavs>spurs2]

Be honest, who here actually believes the 9/11 report in its entirety?

[ChumpDumper]

Be honest, who here actually believes the 9/11 report in its entirety?What parts do you not believe?

Page and paragraph numbers are requested.

I can find the odd erroneous detail, but it is not an engineering report.

[Blake]

You have denied answering a simple question for pages now:

Why would anyone want to bring down WTC7?

are you waiting for the insurance money motive?

I know I am....

cmon Gal, answer the question

[Blake]

lemme guess too.....

Silverstein said "pull it" and that's all the proof you need, right?

[Galileo]

are you waiting for the insurance money motive?

I know I am....

cmon Gal, answer the question

I don't buy that one. I'm skeptical of conspiracy theories like that.

[Galileo]

lemme guess too.....

Silverstein said "pull it" and that's all the proof you need, right?

pull it!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pull+it%21&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

[ChumpDumper]

Where are the cables they attached to WTC7 to pull it down with heavy equipment?

Where is the heavy equipment that pulled the cables that brought WTC7 down?

Where is the video of the heavy equipment pulling thee cables that brought WTC7 down?

[Galileo]

Where are the cables they attached to WTC7 to pull it down with heavy equipment?

Where is the heavy equipment that pulled the cables that brought WTC7 down?

Where is the video of the heavy equipment pulling thee cables that brought WTC7 down?

There's no evidence that Silverstein ever mentioned any cables. Why won't PBS release all the raw footage of the Silverstein interview? Because it would hang 'em.

[ChumpDumper]

There's no evidence that Silverstein ever mentioned any cables.Because there were none. I'm glad the other people reading this thread can figure out the joke even if you can't.


Why won't PBS release all the raw footage of the Silverstein interview? Because it would hang 'em.So now PBS is behind 9/11?

[Galileo]

Because there were none. I'm glad the other people reading this thread can figure out the joke even if you can't.

So now PBS is behind 9/11?

dufus. When you do anetwork interview, you sit and talk for at least 10 minutes and probably 30 for Silverstein. Where's the rest of the inteview? PBS edited out about a minute for their documentry. What else is there? If Silverstein had clarified the pull it comment, you can bet PBS would have released it. What really happened is that Silverstein fucked up the cover story. He thought the cover story was an engineered collapse for safety reasons.

I'll bet that in the raw footage he says that, if we ever see it.

[ChumpDumper]

dufus. When you do anetwork interview, you sit and talk for at least 10 minutes and probably 30 for Silverstein. Where's the rest of the inteview? PBS edited out about a minute for their documentry. What else is there? If Silverstein had clarified the pull it comment, you can bet PBS would have released it. What really happened is that Silverstein fucked up the cover story. He thought the cover story was an engineered collapse for safety reasons.

I'll bet that in the raw footage he says that, if we ever see it.There was no need to clarify the pull it statement. He is clearly talking about the firefighting effort. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

Why would Silverstein want to destroy WTC7?

[Alex Jones]

It's only a matter of time before the truth comes out and Chump will have to change his screen name out of embarrassment.

[ChumpDumper]

It's only a matter of time before the truth comes out and Chump will have to change his screen name out of embarrassment.Is that why you change yours so often?

[Obstructed_View]

Be honest, who here actually believes the 9/11 report in its entirety?

I have a lot of problems with it, chief among them that Jamie Gorelick, possibly the American most responsible for allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen, was actually on the 9/11 commission. That is a far cry from believing any suggestion that anyone in the US government was involved in a plot to hijack planes, plant explosives or kill Americans.

[Blake]

I don't buy that one. I'm skeptical of conspiracy theories like that.

but you have no problem with conspiracy theories that involve controlled demolition. Got it.

I don't like playing the "nope, guess again" game. Answer Chump's question.

If insurance money isn't a motive, why did Silverstein want the building to come down?

[Blake]

pull it!


true or false:

"pull it" is a demolition term

[mavs>spurs2]

I have a lot of problems with it, chief among them that Jamie Gorelick, possibly the American most responsible for allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen, was actually on the 9/11 commission. That is a far cry from believing any suggestion that anyone in the US government was involved in a plot to hijack planes, plant explosives or kill Americans.

That is exactly how I feel, but I also feel there's no way to find out the whole truth so I just stay away from conspiracy theories altogether

[Galileo]

true or false:

"pull it" is a demolition term

It is a term used by Larry Silverstein to refer to engineered collapses. Silverstein is not a demolitions professional, so he would not be expected to use technical jargon.

[ChumpDumper]

It is a term used by Larry Silverstein to refer to engineered collapses. Silverstein is not a demolitions professional, so he would not be expected to use technical jargon.Pull is a very specific demolition term used to described pulling down of a structure with cables.

Where are the cables?

Why would anyone want to destroy WTC7?

[Galileo]

Pull is a very specific demolition term used to described pulling down of a structure with cables.




Sorry, Silverstein didn't work in the demolition industry, he wouldn't be expected to use technical terms in a technically accurate way.

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry, Silverstein didn't work in the demolition industry, he wouldn't be expected to use technical terms in a technically accurate way.Nor is he a firefighter, so he is more likely to use that term for the firefighting operations that day.

[Wild Cobra]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/RTM-4/WTC-Basement-top-secret.gif

This cannot be an image of any of the towers. The beams are too close together!

[Blake]

Nor is he a firefighter, so he is more likely to use that term for the firefighting operations that day.

exactly.

It's pretty well documented that Silverstein was on the phone with the fire chief when the phrase "pull it" was uttered from his mouth.

Why would he tell a fire chief that has nothing to do with demolition to "pull it"?

So if insurance is not a motive for you, then why would anyone want to destroy WTC7?

[ChumpDumper]

Firefighters are also not demolition experts, so there is no reason he would tell firefighters to blow up a building.

Twoofers are idiots.

[Galileo]

Firefighters are also not demolition experts, so there is no reason he would tell firefighters to blow up a building.

Twoofers are idiots.

He did it. Its on video.

[Galileo]

exactly.

It's pretty well documented that Silverstein was on the phone with the fire chief when the phrase "pull it" was uttered from his mouth.

Why would he tell a fire chief that has nothing to do with demolition to "pull it"?

So if insurance is not a motive for you, then why would anyone want to destroy WTC7?

Silverstein was trying to "pull" your leg.

[ChumpDumper]

He did it. Its on video.Firefighters don't blow up buildings that are already on fire with explosives.

Ever.

Firefighters do pull back from a firefighting operation if there is danger of a building collapse.

That is exactly what happened with WTC7.

You are worse than scum for accusing the FDNY of blowing up WTC7.

[Blake]

He did it. Its on video.

No, he did not say to the firefighters "blow up my building"

you are an idiot.

[Blake]

Silverstein was trying to "pull" your leg.

"pull" my leg?.......oh, I see what you did there......

[Blake]

Why would anyone want to destroy WTC7?

[Dude]

Where are the cables?


Above your head.

http://www.crystalinks.com/pinocchio.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Been there, debunked it. Fuck this shit is like killing cockroaches.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65131&page=59

[RandomGuy]

I'd like to see anyone that owns a building anywhere in the world turn off the fire alarms, then watch the building fall down a few hours later, then go on national TV and say "Pull it", and not be investigated for arson.

PULL IT!!

WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1340351950774479027&q=pull+it&total=20339&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Except that he said "THEY" made the decision. Not "I made the decision" to pull it.

Let's look at everything the man said.


"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

The conspiracy theorists (hereafter referred to as “CTs”) believe that Silverstein was ordering the FDNY to demolish, or to allow to be demolished, building 7.

In my experience, the CTs are in such a hurry to get to the “pull it” phrase that they neglect to read the statement carefully. While I will provide much evidence in this paper that’s intended to convince the most hardcore CT, all that’s really necessary is to apply a bit of logic to the Silverstein statement, so I’ll start by doing that.

“...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'”
Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein saying,

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”

or was he saying,

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?

Be honest, CTs. Which statement makes sense, and which is completely absurd?

[RandomGuy]

Before we continue examining conspiracist misrepresentations about WTC 7, it's important that we understand what the official version of events is. Here's a summary, from the NIST report.

Essential Reading: NIST NCSTAR 1-8 Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: The Emergency Response Operations. (PDF)

Excerpt: Summary of World Trade Center Building 7 Emergency Response.


• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors [fires were visible on at least 16 floors]. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

Here’s a much-reprinted quote from FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:


"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt."[Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

In another interview, Chief Nigro said,


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y

In 2007, "Ref" of the JREF forum and 9/11 Guide contacted Chief Nigro for clarification of some points. Here's the reply he received:


Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103)
That’s certainly straightforward. Building 7 was severely damaged and had severe, uncontrollable fires, and the FDNY withdrew its firefighters to protect their safety.

[RandomGuy]

At the beginning of this paper I introduced the group NY911truth, which some friends and I confront on Saturdays at Ground Zero. In my first appearance there, in June or July, 2006, the first thing the group’s leader Les Jamieson said to me was, “We should have a debate.” I’m sure he didn’t know then that I knew far more of the facts of 9/11 than he, although I had only been looking into the CT claims for three months and he had been doing so since November, 2001. We did have an impromptu mini-debate before the video camera of documentarian Fletcher Holmes. The subject was the collapse of WTC 7, which Jamieson believes is one of the best pieces of evidence in favor of the “inside job” theory.

I reminded Jamieson that the firefighters reported massive damage and raging, uncontrolled fires, and that the Chiefs, specifically Chief Nigro, gave the order to withdraw the firefighters from the area long before the building collapsed. He replied that perhaps they had been ordered to withdraw by someone higher up, such as Nicholas Scoppetta, the FDNY Commissioner, who presumably got his orders from someone who was in on the plot.

That made me very angry. It was the first time I had heard someone blame the FDNY for the collapse of WTC 7. Since then, I’ve heard at least three other members of Jamieson’s organization make the same claim while standing on the ground where so many heroes died.

Let’s keep in mind what it would mean (only as far as the FDNY’s involvement is concerned) if
Jamieson was correct:

1. The top people in the FDNY were so corrupt that they called off a search for hundreds of fallen firefighters in order to participate in a crime.

2. The FDNY Chiefs who claim to have made an agonizing decision to stop rescue operations in the area around WTC 7, in order to to keep rescuers from becoming victims, are lying.

3. All the people on the scene who reported massive damage and uncontrolled fires on many floors at building 7, and who said they were sure that the building would collapse (we’ll read their reports later), were coerced into inventing those stories in order to cover up the crime of deliberate demolition of a skyscraper.

4. The massive amount of smoke seen billowing from nearly every floor on WTC 7’s south side did not indicate massive fires.

5. None of the 16,000 uniformed or civilian members of the FDNY, or anyone else who was involved in this huge conspiracy, has come forward about these issues in the past 5 years.

Les Jamieson, leader of NY 911 Truth


Jamieson has appeared twice on the NYC-area television show Hardfire, where his arguments were eviscerated by host Ron Wieck. Watch it here part 1 and here part 2.



Firefighters’ Statements: “Of Course They’re Lies!”

Following is a transcription of an audio recording I made at Ground Zero on September 16, 2006. Bold type indicates shouting. The participants are me, Les Jamieson, and a particularly volatile and ignorant member of his organization named Jack, who is a regular on Saturdays.

Jack, member of NY 911 Truth



A substantial crowd had gathered. First, I read the Daniel Nigro quote above to Mr. Jamieson. Here it is again. It bears repeating:
“The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.”

Me, to Jamieson: Chief of Operations, right here, who gave the order to start clearing this area three hours beforehand. And you’re saying that Larry Silverstein gave that order? Why?

I pull out a sheaf of quotes from FDNY eyewitnesses that detail the fire, damage, and suspected collapse of building 7.

Me: I’ve got page after page corroborating that. Page after page corroborating the damage, page after page corroborating that he gave the order, page after page saying that they did pull the men out starting at about 3 o’clock. But you blame Larry Silverstein. Why?

Jack, interrupting: BECAUSE HE SAID “PULL THE BUILDING!”

Me: Oh, did he?

JACK: PULL is the operative word! You say “they” was the operative word? IT WAS PULL. P-U-L-L!
I hand him the printout of Silverstein’s statement.

Me: Here, read this to the people. Are you afraid to? Let’s see if you get it right. On 9/11, I gave this quote to four different people of your persuasion, and every single one of them said, when they were reading it, said “He” decided to pull. Now you read it. See what it says.

JACK: We went through this before. This is a reprise of a previous episode. [True: from about an hour earlier!] He asked me to read this paragraph. I’ll read the paragraph, and let’s see if it’s going to register as funny, okay? I read the whole paragraph, and he says to me “read the last sentence.” I say, Okay, ‘And they made that decision to pull.’

Me: And who was “they?”

JACK: No, wait a minute! Here’s the punch line. I say to him, “What’s the operative word here?” He says to me “They.” NO. IT’S PULL. P-U-L-L!

Me: Okay, I’ve got 15 different quotes here where fire department– (JACK starts to walk away) You gonna stand here and listen? –Where Fire Department people use the word “pull,” meaning pull their people out.

JACK: You don’t even understand English grammar! He said “IT!” “IT!”

Me: Yeah, the operations. The firefighting operations. I don’t understand English grammar?

Jamieson: People were pulled out at 11:30, weren’t they?

Me: No, sir, they weren’t. As you know – because I’m sure you’ve read the quotes – it started at about 2:30, the pullout. Before that they were trying to rescue their people who were under the rubble here.

Jamieson: I have 11:30. So even if it’s 2:30, why are they saying to pull it at 5:20?

Me: When did the conversation with Silverstein happen? Hours beforehand.

Jamieson: No.

Me: Yes, sir. You’re saying that Chief Daniel Nigro is lying? You’re saying the Fire Department is lying?

Jamieson: Silverstein is lying, maybe. Could that be?

Me: About what? His story corroborates perfectly with what the Fire Department says.

Jamieson: ‘Cause he says “We agreed to pull the building, then we watched it collapse.”

Reminder: Les Jamieson is the leader of one of the major 9/11 “Truth” organizations, and he claims to have been investigating these matters since 2001. Also, Jamieson was listening attentively 30 seconds earlier when Jack read “And they made that decision to pull.”

Me: No, sir. He says “They made that decision to pull.” Who’s “they?” He’s on the phone with the Fire Department.

Jamieson: Right.

Me: So you’re saying the Fire Department’s lying, when they’re saying that they made the decision?

Jamieson: How does the Fire Department have the ability to pull?

Me: To pull? To pull their men out. (I shake my sheaf of quotes) Fifteen different times they use the quote “pull,” meaning pull their men away from the building–

JACK:NO! THEY SAID PULL IT!

Me: –and thank God they did, because no one was killed when building 7 collapsed.

JACK: PULL IT!

Me: Was that a good decision or not?

Unidentified Truther:PULL IT!

Me: And they did that three hours before the building collapsed.

Jamieson: What about–

Me: I’m asking you a question. Is the Fire Department lying? You’re saying Larry Silverstein gave the order. I have page after page of quotes. Are they lying?

JACK: This is total obfuscation! Total obfuscation! What difference does it make if the time is plus or minus two hours? He said “PULL THE BUILDING! PULL THE BUILDING!”

Jamieson:PULL THE BUILDING! And it fell straight down! Not south!

JACK:PULL IT! I-T!

Me (reading from FDNY quotes): Fire Department Chief Daniel Nigro: “The biggest decision we had to make–“

JACK, to the crowd:HE’S OBFUSCATING! WITH TOTAL BULLSHIT!

Me:“–was to create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.”

How about this: “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.”

And this: “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.”

Here’s another: “They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. ... Finally they pulled us out.”

Here’s another: “Seven World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling, fully involved.“

Here’s another: “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.”

JACK: HAHAHA!

Me: Yeah, it’s a lie? These are all lies the Fire Department is telling? I’m recording this, by the way.

JACK: OF COURSE THEY’RE LIES! TOTAL FABRICATIONS! TOTAL FABRICATIONS!

Jack walks away, shaking his head. Jamieson makes no objection to his statements.

Please let Les Jamieson know what you think about what he and his organization’s members say at Ground Zero. His 9/11-related email address is [email protected]

[RandomGuy]

"Pull it" is really truther code words for "I am masturbating to a video of Alex Jones ranting about 9-11".

That's why this bullshit comes up so often. HA!

[Alex Jones]

The sad part is, after all the Red Bull induced copy and paste marathon RandomLie produces, we are no closer to finding out the truth.

[Nbadan]

Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

:lmao Circular logic! Gotta love it!

[Alex Jones]

more like circular stupidity. Why is it the anti 9/11 for truth people and the Atheist are so gullible?

[Nbadan]

more like circular stupidity. Why is it the anti 9/11 for truth people and the Atheist are so gullible?

Funny you asked, I've been wondering the same thing myself...They are like a sick cult...they know that the Bush administration has completely ass-raped them continuously about the truth about, well,....anything, yet they keep coming back for more....

...they put their trust in a committee whose Co-Chairmen where hand-picked by the very administration that they were supposed to investigate...

....then the report comes out and that committee doesn't even mention WTC7....like it never happened...

....and don't even get me started about how they think Dubya, Cheney, and 9ui11iani acted exemplary, even heroically on 9/11...even though Dubya stayed in a Elementary school full of children less than a few miles from a Florida airport that for all they knew, could have had a hijacked airplane heading straight for it.....Cheney was in his secret command bunker, commanding......well,..... nothing, and 9ui11iani was with his mistress having an affair...

[mouse]

^ this vato gets it!


http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/ToolBarTopics/Articles/Other_Topics/9-11_Anomalies/Art/Dees_Illustration_Jet_Fuel;_That%27s_A_Good_One.jp g

KzBtE__mZlI

[RandomGuy]

Before we continue examining conspiracist misrepresentations about WTC 7, it's important that we understand what the official version of events is. Here's a summary, from the NIST report.

Essential Reading: NIST NCSTAR 1-8 Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: The Emergency Response Operations. (PDF)

Excerpt: Summary of World Trade Center Building 7 Emergency Response.


• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors [fires were visible on at least 16 floors]. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

Here’s a much-reprinted quote from FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:


"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt."[Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

In another interview, Chief Nigro said,


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y

In 2007, "Ref" of the JREF forum and 9/11 Guide contacted Chief Nigro for clarification of some points. Here's the reply he received:


Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103)
That’s certainly straightforward. Building 7 was severely damaged and had severe, uncontrollable fires, and the FDNY withdrew its firefighters to protect their safety.

Astonishing that this didn't get commented on.

[RandomGuy]

Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.



:lmao Circular logic! Gotta love it!

It's actually not circular logic, Dan, but it doesn't quite surprise me that you didn't catch that.

Here is an example of actual circular logic.

No high-rise building has ever collapsed from a fire.
If a high-rise building collapses, it must NOT be from a fire.

The second step follows from the first, and is a condition precedent for the first one.

It follows the same form as:
No human being has ever achieved heavier than air flight.
If a human being acheives flight, it must not be heavier than air flight. (i.e a hot-air balloon).

The above logic string falls apart if one can prove that even one person has managed heavier than air flight in, say, an airplane.

Now, where you fail is that you can't really logically compare ANY previous fire to what happened to WTC 1 and 2, because of the damage from the plane impacts, and those make it different from ANY other fire.

[RandomGuy]

Because you have been so thoroughly spanked in trying to prove explosives or thermite in WTC 1 or 2 you fall back to WTC7 and jump up and down for every Alex Jones pronouncements about this like hysterical school girls at a High School Musical show.

[RandomGuy]

The sad part is, after all the Red Bull induced copy and paste marathon RandomLie produces, we are no closer to finding out the truth.

Are you accusing Nigro of lying?

Here’s a much-reprinted quote from FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:


"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt."[Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

In another interview, Chief Nigro said,


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y

In 2007, "Ref" of the JREF forum and 9/11 Guide contacted Chief Nigro for clarification of some points. Here's the reply he received:


Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103)

[RandomGuy]

more like circular stupidity. Why is it the anti 9/11 for truth people and the Atheist are so gullible?

4ikRc4ER2xY

Meet Alex Jones

The only people who are gullible are the people who buy your t-shirts, you ass clown.

[Blake]

so why did they want WTC 7 to come down?

[doobs]

4ikRc4ER2xY

Meet Alex Jones

The only people who are gullible are the people who buy your t-shirts, you ass clown.

I like the Galileo part.

Alex Jones is entertaining. A paranoid lunatic who bullies those he disagrees with . . . but entertaining.

[RandomGuy]

Are you accusing Nigro of lying?

Here’s a much-reprinted quote from FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:


"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt."[Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

In another interview, Chief Nigro said,


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y

In 2007, "Ref" of the JREF forum and 9/11 Guide contacted Chief Nigro for clarification of some points. Here's the reply he received:


Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103)

Still waiting on mouse to back off the "pull it" BS.

[RandomGuy]

Are you accusing Nigro of lying?

Here’s a much-reprinted quote from FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:


"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt."[Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

In another interview, Chief Nigro said,


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y

In 2007, "Ref" of the JREF forum and 9/11 Guide contacted Chief Nigro for clarification of some points. Here's the reply he received:


Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103)

..or for that matter Dan or any other conspiranut to either directly call Nigro a liar or take it back.

You can't have it both ways, either he was in on it, or he wasn't.

[RandomGuy]

Are you accusing Nigro of lying?

Here’s a much-reprinted quote from FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:


"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt."[Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

In another interview, Chief Nigro said,


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y

In 2007, "Ref" of the JREF forum and 9/11 Guide contacted Chief Nigro for clarification of some points. Here's the reply he received:


Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103)

Because the only way that the "Silverstein ordered the demolition when he said pull it" thing is true is if this guy is lying.

Call him a liar straight up or take it back, but don't ignore what the guy said.

[RandomGuy]

Are you accusing Nigro of lying?

Here’s a much-reprinted quote from FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:


"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt."[Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

In another interview, Chief Nigro said,


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y

In 2007, "Ref" of the JREF forum and 9/11 Guide contacted Chief Nigro for clarification of some points. Here's the reply he received:


Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103)

The thing that gets me is that he mentioned a lof of other things about this, such as the lack of water to control the fires.

For the conspiracy nuts why is that not addressed?

Or was he lying about that too?

[half a man]

Half truth ^ not good enough!

[Galileo]

There were no firefighters in WTC 7, so there were no firefighters in WTC 7 to "pull".

[Galileo]

If Silverstein didn't pull WTC 7, then who did?

[ChumpDumper]

There were no firefighters in WTC 7, so there were no firefighters in WTC 7 to "pull".Except there were, in and around WTC7.


If Silverstein didn't pull WTC 7, then who did?No one.

That was easy.

[RandomGuy]

There were no firefighters in WTC 7, so there were no firefighters in WTC 7 to "pull".

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103)

[RandomGuy]

If Silverstein didn't pull WTC 7, then who did?


For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103)

[Galileo]

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103)

If WTC 7 was an engineered collapse for safety reasons, why would that be a conspiracy? Its not a crime and it potentially saved lives.

[ChumpDumper]

If WTC 7 was an engineered collapse for safety reasons, why would that be a conspiracy?So you think WTC7 was collapsed for safety reasons?

[DarrinS]

So you think WTC7 was collapsed for safety reasons?


Well, somebody did say "pull it", but then again, that might have been Nbadan talking to Galileo during their "naughty time".

[Galileo]

So you think WTC7 was collapsed for safety reasons?

Its possible. That's what John Kerry thinks.

[ChumpDumper]

Its possible. That's what John Kerry thinks.That wasn't my question.

What do you think?

[Galileo]

That wasn't my question.

What do you think?

Unlike the Archie Debunkers, I don't claim to know evrything about 9/11. Rather, I go by the facts.

I'd say it's about 10% likely that WTC 7 was engineered to collapse for safety reasons.

[ChumpDumper]

I go by the facts.:lmao


I'd say it's about 10% likely that WTC 7 was engineered to collapse for safety reasons.So how did the fire department engineer the collapse of WTC7 for safety reasons?

Which standard procedure calls for a skyscraper to be intentionally demolished for safety reason within three hours of its being declared unsafe?

Please give us the facts.

[Galileo]

:lmao

So how did the fire department engineer the collapse of WTC7 for safety reasons?

Which standard procedure calls for a skyscraper to be intentionally demolished for safety reason within three hours of its being declared unsafe?

Please give us the facts.

The fire department didn't do it.

[ChumpDumper]

So who did?

And how?

Please give us the facts.

[Galileo]

So who did?

And how?

Please give us the facts.

The federal terrorists.

[ChumpDumper]

The federal terrorists.So the "federal terrorists" demolished WTC7 for safety reasons and it wasn't a criminal act?

:rollin

[RandomGuy]

I go by the facts.


:lmao

oh stop, I can't (giggle) stand (hahahah) it...

[Galileo]

So the "federal terrorists" demolished WTC7 for safety reasons and it wasn't a criminal act?

:rollin

military actions are legal.

[ChumpDumper]

military actions are legal.So the federal military terrorists demolished it for safety reasons?

[Laker Lanny]

I am not a aluminum foil hat wearer but I think this country lies to it's people 24/7

[ChumpDumper]

You aren't Laker Lanny either.

[Saved By Zero]

You aren't Laker Lanny either.

Might be the only time you ever speak the truth in a 9/11 topic.

[Obstructed_View]

What the fuck is a federal military terrorist?

[Nbadan]

Chumpy and RandomLie wants truthers to answer questions that have never been investigated at any level...'nough said....

[Ricardo Romo]

If only those two would post what they really feel.

[ChumpDumper]

Chumpy and RandomLie wants truthers to answer questions that have never been investigated at any level...'nough said....Plenty of people have said what they believe really happened on 9/11 after extensive investigation -- but you're too much of a coward to do so. It's much easier for you to propagate lies about what has already been investigated and spread innuendo about an alternate theory you will never, ever share -- because deep inside you know it's ridiculous and will be so easily shot down you'll be even more of a laughing stock than you are presently.

Brave, brave Sir Robin....

'nuff said (if you're going to quote Stan Lee, do it right, coward).

[mookie2001]

Chumpy and RandomLie wants truthers to answer questions that have never been investigated at any level...'nough said....
uhh yes exactly

and says the 9/11 commission report doesnt mean shit and nobody should care about it

[ChumpDumper]

uhh yes exactly

and says the 9/11 commission report doesnt mean shit and nobody should care about it:lol The 9/11 Commission Report is important, but not for the reasons you think.

You never read it anyway, so you can't say you really care about any of this.

[Alex Jones]

:lol The 9/11 Commission Report is important, but not for the reasons you think.

You never read it anyway, so you can't say you really care about any of this.

I never read Moby Dick and yet I know it's all bullshit.

[ChumpDumper]

I never read Moby Dick and yet I know it's all bullshit.What about the fictional novel Moby Dick do you consider bullshit?

[FreeMason]

Is the government crashing the economy/dollar on purpose to open up the opportunity to gain more control?

[johnsmith.]

:lol The 9/11 Commission Report is important, .


There went your credibility.

[Cry Havoc]

The level of complete annihilation by RandomGuy in this thread is remarkable. I haven't seen a group of people so spanked by a single person in an internet debate in a long time. Must be humiliating to NBADan and Galileo that they are unable to post anything further with substance on the topic of WTC7 and are resorting to, "I only go by facts."

:lol Beautiful.

[johnsmith]

There went your credibility.

:lmao Says the guy that is copying someone that is using a fictional name.

[Nbadan]

The level of complete annihilation by RandomGuy in this thread is remarkable. I haven't seen a group of people so spanked by a single person in an internet debate in a long time. Must be humiliating to NBADan and Galileo that they are unable to post anything further with substance on the topic of WTC7 and are resorting to, "I only go by facts."

:lol Beautiful.

:rolleyes Yeah, and were still looking for Saddam's WMDs too....

[Cry Havoc]

:rolleyes Yeah, and were still looking for Saddam's WMDs too....

Now that you mention it, the kind of evasiveness, lack of ability to comprehend basic facts, denial, and double-talk you guys use, you DO actually sound a lot like Bush.

[RandomGuy]

There were no firefighters in WTC 7, so there were no firefighters in WTC 7 to "pull".

Which is entirely consistant with the words of the Assistant fire chief, who actually made the call to pull the operations.


For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103)

[mouse]

Anyone who has seen WTC7 come down and still thinks it's from a fire, doesn't deserve to be taken seriously and therefore forfeits all rights to any mature debate on the subject.

LD06SAf0p9A

[Galileo]

Which is entirely consistant with the words of the Assistant fire chief, who actually made the call to pull the operations.

Not consistent with Silverstein's BS, where he later said that he meant he wanted to "oull" the firefighters.

Silverstein is tangled up in a web of lies.

[Galileo]

Anyone who has seen WTC7 come down and still thinks it's from a fire, doesn't deserve to be taken seriously and therefore forfeits all rights to any mature debate on the subject.

LD06SAf0p9A

Great post. A picture is worth a 1000 words.

[Blake]

Anyone who has seen WTC7 come down and still thinks it's from a fire, doesn't deserve to be taken seriously and therefore forfeits all rights to any mature debate on the subject.


so why did they want WTC 7 to come down?

[Blake]

Not consistent with Silverstein's BS, where he later said that he meant he wanted to "oull" the firefighters.

Silverstein is tangled up in a web of lies.

so exactly how much money has Silverstein made thanks to his devious scheme to blow up his building?

[Galileo]

so why did they want WTC 7 to come down?

You can't tell from this video why they wanted WTC 7 to come down. But you can see it coming down.

You are making the same errors that the opponents of Galileo and Newton made.

Galileo and Newton did not know WHY we had gravity, they just knew WHAT gravity did. Decartes did not accept Galileo because he complained that Galileo did not explain WHY we had the law of falling bodies.

Of course, Descartes was wrong. In science, you explain WHAT happens. In philosophy you explain WHY things happen.

The collapse of WTC 7 is a scientific question, not philosophy.

[Galileo]

so exactly how much money has Silverstein made thanks to his devious scheme to blow up his building?

Not sure that he made any money. He did avoid more than a billion dollars of costs to get rid of the asbestos, although that cost would have born by the NYC government as well.

[Blake]

You can't tell from this video why they wanted WTC 7 to come down. But you can see it coming down.

You are making the same errors that the opponents of Galileo and Newton made.

Galileo and Newton did not know WHY we had gravity, they just knew WHAT gravity did. Decartes did not accept Galileo because he complained that Galileo did not explain WHY we had the law of falling bodies.

Of course, Descartes was wrong. In science, you explain WHAT happens. In philosophy you explain WHY things happen.

The collapse of WTC 7 is a scientific question, not philosophy.

I'm never sure who is a mouse troll or who isnt.....some are more obvious than others, but you are coming close to making me a believer that you are...

This is neither scientific nor philosophic. You are accusing Silverstein of being a liar. If he has no alterior motive, then why is he lying?

Why does anyone want WTC 7 to come down? Who gained from this buiulding coming down?

[ChumpDumper]

You can't tell from this video why they wanted WTC 7 to come down. But you can see it coming down.No one is debating that the building came down.


Not sure that he made any money. He did avoid more than a billion dollars of costs to get rid of the asbestos, although that cost would have born by the NYC government as well.:lmao 9/11 was done to avoid asbestos removal!

[RandomGuy]

Not consistent with Silverstein's BS, where he later said that he meant he wanted to "oull" the firefighters.

Silverstein is tangled up in a web of lies.


"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Silverstein NEVER EVER said "I made the decision", and his statement fits rather nicely with what Nigro said.



For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94103)


Unless of course you can show me DIRECT quotes where Silversteien contradicts himself.

[Galileo]

Silverstein NEVER EVER said "I made the decision", and his statement fits rather nicely with what Nigro said.





Unless of course you can show me DIRECT quotes where Silversteien contradicts himself.

Direct yourself to it. You're the person who claims to know everything.

[Blake]

Direct yourself to it. You're the person who claims to know everything.

You claim you're Galileo.

You also say Silverstein is a big liar so why does he want the building to come down? Are you really going with asbestos or is it something else?

[Galileo]

You claim you're Galileo.

You also say Silverstein is a big liar so why does he want the building to come down? Are you really going with asbestos or is it something else?

You are ignorant of science. Anyone with two eyes can see that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

Finding out exactly "why" it was done has nothing to do with scientific truth.

[burntorange]

You are ignorant of science. Anyone with two eyes can see that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

Finding out exactly "why" it was done has nothing to do with scientific truth.

I have three eyes, and I say it was NOT a controlled demolition!

[johnsmith]

You are ignorant of science. Anyone with two eyes can see that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

Finding out exactly "why" it was done has nothing to do with scientific truth.

And you actually think you are a person that died 500 years ago................the world is full of crazy people.

[ChumpDumper]

You are ignorant of science. Anyone with two eyes can see that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.When one can only see roughly 1/4 of a structure, it's pretty stupid to draw conclusions about the entire structure from it.


Finding out exactly "why" it was done has nothing to do with scientific truth.Misquoting and lying about the misquoting have nothing to do with any kind of truth.

[Galileo]

When one can only see roughly 1/4 of a structure, it's pretty stupid to draw conclusions about the entire structure from it.

Misquoting and lying about the misquoting have nothing to do with any kind of truth.

You wouldn't recognize the truth if it slapped you across your brow with a wet carp!

[johnsmith]

You wouldn't recognize the truth if it slapped you across your brow with a wet carp!

Perhaps, but the same goes for you in regards to reality.

[ChumpDumper]

You wouldn't recognize the truth if it slapped you across your brow with a wet carp!What is your scientific evidence proving it was a controlled demolition?

[Galileo]

What is your scientific evidence proving it was a controlled demolition?

The collapse had all the scientific characteristics of a controlled demolition.

[ChumpDumper]

The collapse had all the scientific characteristics of a controlled demolition.You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.

[RandomGuy]

Direct yourself to it. You're the person who claims to know everything.

Don't be a lazy shit.

You said he was lying, you show me how.

Unless of course, you just read it somewhere and sucked it up as gospel without thinking for yourself, which is what we all know you did.

[RandomGuy]

The collapse had all the scientific characteristics of a controlled demolition.

The collapse had none of the scientific characteristics of a controlled demolition.

[Blake]

You are ignorant of science. Anyone with two eyes can see that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

Finding out exactly "why" it was done has nothing to do with scientific truth.

You are ignorant of respectable structural engineers and you apparently are also ignorant of the reports of pools of molten steel at the scene.

Regardless, finding out "why" would explain why Silverstein committed a "crime".

[Blake]

You wouldn't recognize the truth if it slapped you across your brow with a wet carp!

You wouldn't recognize the truth if it shot you out of it's womb, let you suck on it's teets for 3 years and gave you a car when you were 18.

[Galileo]

The collapse had none of the scientific characteristics of a controlled demolition.

You remind me of a defense attorney trying to defend a guilty client.

Or a chess player behind who tries to complicate to game with unexpected pawn moves.

I'm sorry, but your obfuscations are not fooling anyone. You have failed.

[Blake]

You remind me of a defense attorney trying to defend a guilty client.

Or a chess player behind who tries to complicate to game with unexpected pawn moves.

I'm sorry, but your obfuscations are not fooling anyone. You have failed.

You remind me of a defense attorney trying to save his client accused of murder and you show the jury a video of Farenheit: 9/11.

You have provided nothing except some internet footage of something that means nothing. Your middle name is failed. Galfailedleo.

[Galileo]

You remind me of a defense attorney trying to save his client accused of murder and you show the jury a video of Farenheit: 9/11.

You have provided nothing except some internet footage of something that means nothing. Your middle name is failed. Galfailedleo.

Wow! You are clever.

[Blake]

Wow! You are clever.

Wow! You aren't.

[Blake]

Your middle name is failed. Galfailedleo.

:lol it's even funnier reading my own fail joke the 2nd time.

[RandomGuy]

You remind me of a defense attorney trying to defend a guilty client.

Or a chess player behind who tries to complicate to game with unexpected pawn moves.

I'm sorry, but your obfuscations are not fooling anyone. You have failed.

So showing actual quotes from the people involved is "obfuscating", whereas making claims about what someone said, but not providing the original quotes is not.

Gotcha.

[RandomGuy]

Galileo said he likes to eat kittens for breakfast.

Don't ask me to show where he said that, just take my word for it.

[RandomGuy]

Not consistent with Silverstein's BS, where he later said that he meant he wanted to "oull" the firefighters.

Silverstein is tangled up in a web of lies.


Silverstein NEVER EVER said "I made the decision", and his statement fits rather nicely with what Nigro said.
(sourced direct quote from both Silverstein and FDNY asst cheif Nigro)

Unless of course you can show me DIRECT quotes where Silversteien contradicts himself.


Direct yourself to it.



You said he was lying, you show me how.



[ignores request for proof]

[RandomGuy]

:lol it's even funnier reading my own fail joke the 2nd time.


Try this one:


Galifaileo

[Cry Havoc]

I cannot understand how detached from reality someone must be in order to get so thoroughly crushed in a debate that they stop even attempting to provide evidence for their own argument, but still believe every single lie that comes out of their mouth.

It really is fascinating. As a psychologist, I'd love to do a little research on truthers to see how how happens. Perhaps 9/11 was such a traumatic event that they refuse to allow their brains to rationally encode the information into their memory? It's extremely interesting, because every truther I've met or talked to is exactly the same.

[Blake]

Try this one:


Galifaileo

naw, mine's much worse than that.....

I usually know better.....:lol