Beginning Fad of the 21st Century

[quote]ssn0 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
“Did you know: one out of every four AMericans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy? Do you really think one-fourth of America is retarded?” ~Eric Cartman

“Umm… yea. Thats sounds about right.”
~Stan

Matt & Trey Creators of SP probably don’t want to get shot, or die in a planecrash. Besides, my tri’s are massive[/quote]

Just so you know, I’m calling you a retard.

EVERYTHING can be proven to be a conspiracy. Seriously, every tragic event has hundreds of seemingly viable, unexplained, conspiracy theories. From the assasination of Licoln, to the Great Deppression and stock market crash, to the creation of the constitution, the basis for our entire government.

STFU.

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
This is a good start for debunking 9-11 conspiracy theories.
http://www.911myths.com/

Popular Mechanics has recently released a book debunking conspiracy theories and the pseudo science behind them. Highly recommend it.

The site does not do anything for debunking 9/11 conspiracies. Sure, it tries, but it fails miserably against anyone that has done any research into the incident and can think.

Lets look at one claim the website makes: “there was not enough time to lay explosives for demolition of the WTC buildings.”

If the buildings crashed from plane impact…then…the amount of stress from the plane impact equals building collapse.

It therefore logically follows the website maintains there was not enough time to lay explosives that would cause stress equal to a plane impact. The argument is false, there was plenty of time to lay explosives equal to the impact of the plane, and create a lot more heat.

You see, if a plane impact can cause the buildings to collapse, then you need no more explosives than what equals the stress of a plane impact.

But they argue it both ways:

  1. If explosives were used, it would require hours upon hours of elaborately planted explosives all over the building, pounds and pounds of explosives

but

  1. If a plane brings the building down, it only requires stress from the impact of a plane in one area, not strategically placed, not elaborate.

It cannot be both ways. If stress from a plane impact brought down the buildings, then stress equaling that of a plane impact would also bring down the buildings. That much demolition can be laid very quickly.

Lets think about this a little further:

Everything that is known about building demolition, even the explosives used, was developed by the military. The military are demolition experts.

False assertion: Demolition experts could not lay enough demolition to equal the stress of a plane impact in 24 hours.

Humor me for a moment and make believe for a second the government was in on 9/11, on some level. Now ask yourself who is, and has investigated 9/11? Thats right, the government.

Following this logic, the same entity that committed the crime is investigating the crime. Sounds to me like a good way to get away with the crime. The government says what can and cannot be released for the investigation. What to investigate and what to leave alone.

I have a conspiracy for you that you will probably believe. Ask yourself why you believe one conspiracy theory and ignore others.

Theory:
“Cigarette companies conspired to market cigarettes to minors.”

The cigarette companies deny it, yet many people believe it. Why is one conspiracy so easily accepted, while another one is so readily dismissed?

[/quote]

You do realize that the buildings collapsed first at the damaged floors and not at the bottom, correct? You also realize that the impact of the plane alone did not collapse the building, right? Remaining support and trusses (now carrying a grossly uneven burden) greatly weakend under heat. The building did not collapse upon impact.

Second, are you aware just how much support was destroyed upon impact? Are you knowledgeable of how much demolition it would take to recreate that?. You talk as if very little damage was done to the support structure throughout and around the impact zone.

Again, if you watch close up video, you will see the collapses occuring at those zones, and not at the bottom.

Also, your arguement is odd. You say that if a plane could take down the buildings, than so could a smaller amount of explosives. Well, if a plane could take the buildings down in the first place, why do you insist that demo-explosives had to be involved.

And finally, can you name one stuctural engineer, or related proffessional Journal, which dipute the collapses occurred from massive damage and further heat related weakening? I can tell you as fact, that numerous Structural Engineers and Engineering Journals have studied this.

So, name one that opposes the damage/fire collapse conclusions, and supports the demolition theory. I’ll gladly link you studies from Proffesionals in the field, if you want to hear the science behind the collapses.

[quote]Petedacook wrote:

You see, if a plane impact can cause the buildings to collapse, then you need no more explosives than what equals the stress of a plane impact.

[quote]

Or, if a plane impact can cause the buildings to collapse, than it did? As I said earlier, that’s just an odd arguement. It conceeds that planes could do it. You don’t need enough explosives to “equal the stress of a plane impact,” if a plane actually was there to equal that stress. And hey, we all saw the planes.

[quote]
Also, your arguement is odd. You say that if a plane could take down the buildings, than so could a smaller amount of explosives. Well, if a plane could take the buildings down in the first place, why do you insist that demo-explosives had to be involved.[/quote]

It is late and I will post NUMEROUS engineers and scholars that disagree with your boy Gearge Bush’s report on the incident.

But first, I will take issue with the above quote. I dont understand why you are confused here. If a plane could take down the building, then explosives planted in one area could take down the building. Why when explosives are considered does the building collapse have to be so involved and therefore impossible due to time? Because it fits your conspiracy theory that there was no conspiracy?

Its pretty simple, but anti conspiracy theorists like yourself choose an illogical IF=then argument, then you choose to ignore why it is illogical.

Lets try to dum it down a little more:

if: a plane takes down the building

then: explosives causing equal damage can take down the building.

Not:

if: plane takes down building

then: explosives can take down building when wired on every floor, scientifically and strategically placed, in every column, every few feet, everywhere.

This is pretty basic argumentation. I am beginning to think continuing this discussion with you will be futile.

This video alone is pretty much a nail in the coffin on the demolition theory. At the beginning note the damaged outer columns around the perimeter, towards the top of the video frame. Observe that the collapse starts exactly there. With the top coming down into the damaged area. And then, moving down to the bottom of the building. Also, observe the debris, from the moment of collapse, from the initial collapse zone, outpacing the fall of the building.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=WTC&pl=true

If that not enough, here’s a link to highly reputable demolition company. They debunk the demolition theory, while keeping the language accessible to the layperson.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Note the seismograph discussion. That right there ends the explosive-demo theory. Yes, several seismograph recordings captured the 9/11 events. Not one is consistent with explosive demolition. There is no way to argue around this.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And finally, can you name one stuctural engineer, or related proffessional Journal, which dipute the collapses occurred from massive damage and further heat related weakening? I can tell you as fact, that numerous Structural Engineers and Engineering Journals have studied this.

So, name one that opposes the damage/fire collapse conclusions, and supports the demolition theory. I’ll gladly link you studies from Proffesionals in the field, if you want to hear the science behind the collapses.

[/quote]

Here is one. You know, the idiot that came up with cold fusion.

Need more? Or can you do a search without me doing one for you? My patience is waning with trying to educate you.

Steven E. Jones

“Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist and 9/11 conspiracy theorist.[1][2]. In the 1980s Jones popularized the term cold fusion, but his experimental work was significantly different from the more controversial cold fusion experiments of Pons and Fleischmann.[3”

If you do not get how it is illogical to argue that a plane can demolish a building, but miles of wire and 1,000s of pounds of cordite explosives are needed top to bottom to demolish the same building is an illogical argument, I will no longer respond to your posts on this matter.

So, answer this, do you get the illogical nature of this premise?

See the pic above? Thats what would happen if the plane weakened the structure of the building. Not a freefall demolition with projectiles rocketing from the building. They recently found bodies on the roof tops of buildings blocks from the WTC buildings. How does that happen without explsosives? Jesus this is not rebuilding an engine. This is simple common sense.

Ever hear of PNAC? Probably not.

http://www.cablenewslies.com/pnac.htm


here is some more food for thought.

[quote]Petedacook wrote:

It is late and I will post NUMEROUS engineers and scholars that disagree with your boy Gearge Bush’s report on the incident.

Its pretty simple, but anti conspiracy theorists like yourself choose an illogical IF=then argument, then you choose to ignore why it is illogical.

Lets try to dum it down a little more:

if: a plane takes down the building

then: explosives causing equal damage can take down the building.

 [/quote]

Please do post these ‘scholars.’ However, make sure they are actual proffesionals in the relevant fields. Structurals Engineer, for example.

Your arguement is that one could use an amount of explosives equal to the planes’ damage. As you say, if a plane could take down the buildings. If the plane could take down the buildings, then the talk of explosives is silly. Because we all saw planes strike the buildings!

"Lets try to dum it down a little more:

if: a plane takes down the building

then: explosives causing equal damage can take down the building."

I can’t believe you’re not seeing the glaring hole with those statements. Here I’ll make a change to the “then:…” part to illustrate.

Lets try to dum it down a little more:

"if: a plane takes down the building

then: Your armuement is a moot point. Since we saw planes striking the buildings."

Oh my god, you used Steven Jones…You do realize that he isn’t even remotely trained in the field? You do realize his theory was debunked by Structural Engineers from his own university?

Yes, that’s right, debunked by researchers in the relevant field of study, from his own University…He is a physics proffessor who never worked in structural or civil engineering, prior. This is not his field. Here is a fellow proffessor, of BYU. A man actually learned, and with real world experience, in his field.

"Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his “Conspiracy Theory” relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones’ (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones’ thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet’s fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones’ presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU"

When I asked for experts, I had hoped you would provide someone in a relevant field. And, definitely not one that has been debunked over, and over again, by people in the relevant fields.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Lets try to dum it down a little more:

"if: a plane takes down the building

then: Your armuement is a moot point. Since we saw planes striking the buildings."

[/quote]

It is obvious you are illogical and do not want to view this with an open mind. There is no way any argument will help you to see the light, because logic, science, and reason mean nothing to you.

Please go on comparing apples to oranges and debunking why they are the same and why comparing them is a totally logical argument. I am sure you can find at least one website to support this claim and use it as backup should anyone doubt the logic of your argument.

Here, I found one for you. Now you can debunk all those logical nuts:

http://www.swingmachine.org/cbi/apples.html

I might add, when arguing you should use spell check. It is built into the preview pane.

One more thing, I gave you the originator of cold fusion as a physicist with credentials that supports the 9/11 conppiracy whackos. It took me a minute. Yet you only seem to come up with the same web site as a reference. hint hint…that website is created by the government. interesting to note, the physicist was put on leave when he went public. How does that happen?

Im am going to steal my neighbors stereo from his car, then investigate the crime for him. I am sure we will get to the bottom of that dirty deed with me investigating my crime.

Ever hear of PNAC?

Didnt think so. Close your eyes.

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Ever hear of PNAC?

Didnt think so. Close your eyes. [/quote]

I’ve heard of PNAC. And, I already know that you’re going to use the Pearl Harbor qoute. The one that has nothing to do with 9-11.

Please don’t argue with the conspiracy theorist nut jobs. It’s almost like teasing retards. They WANT badly to think that President Bush blew up the towers and killed thousands of Americans. Don’t try to take that right away from them. Besides you can’t anyway, just read a few of their posts, shake your heads and walk away.

There hasn’t been any direct evidence, at least none that I have found, that supports the conspiracy theories about 911. All of the documents and presentations I have seen discuss the mechanics of the towers collapse, the videos of the attacks, and discrepencies in the eyewitness accounts and reports. Nothing is presented that addresses the massive logistical trail that a government operation like this would have created.

In order to carry out something like this, it will take quite a few people and quite a long time to plan and organize. To keep this type of operation appropriately classified, it would have to be carried out by one organization that has access to aircraft (or the ability to hijack them), explosives, personnel, targeting, intelligence gathering, financing, and communication. All of this would be carried out from within the government with minimal oversight or accountability.

Congressional oversight of government spending is pretty strict, there isn’t much that doesn’t get presented to congress in a public forum or published in congressional records.
The Dept of Defense would be the best guess to carry out this operation.

The DOD has all of the resources to do it, except that the DOD has very stringent accounting requirements. There is paperwork to back up every expendidture and cost. Even so-called “Black” operations and projects are accounted for.

All of this information is available through open sources as long as a researcher is willing to put in the work.
The operation would have been very highly classified, the problem with classified operations is that they need to be supported so if you get too compartmentalized you limit the ability to reach out to other DOD entities for assistance.

This operation would have generated paper work that was unexplained, such as:
-Transfers of aircraft (assuming the operation used military cargo craft painted as airliners) from active, reserve, or air national guard units. Or a transfer of mothballed aircraft from Davis Monthan Air Force Base.
-Accounting codes assigned funds that aren’t explained or justified.
-Transfers of a large amount of explosives, or a reported theft of a large amount of demolition explosives.
-Purchasing equipment to control aircraft by remote, or the transfer of that equipment from a base who conducts remote control of aircraft. (The only ones I can think of are Point Mugo Naval Air Weapons Station, California or Wallops Island Research Center, Virginia.)
-Military personnel reporting they conducted targeting or structural analysis of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or air routes to those targets.
-Military or civilians reporting they fueled or serviced military aircraft painted like airliners sometime in the months proceding the attack.
-Evidence of a large, unaccountable DOD organization that existed from about 1999-2000 that spend millions of dollars and tied up hundreds of personnel.

Many of the events in these points could have been conducted over a period of years, which would have involved the Clinton administration Dept of Defense. That creates a pretty significant amount of people who would have had some partial knowledge of what was going on.
One of the more astute conspiracy reseachers should dig into DOD records and see what they can find. Until any supporting evidence is discovered, I’m going to maintain it was a terrorist attack.
The videos and structural analysis are all circumstantial evidence and don’t directly point to government conspiracy.

9/11 was not a conspiracy. Why would The US Gov’t have “attacked” the Pentagon and also have had a stray airplane crash out of nowhere. The closest I am to believing in a conspiracy is maybe flight 93 was shot down to prevent another attack and the Pentagon and White House is covering it up.

Do you think the US government would have hired suicide pilots to fly the planes or do you think they were under some sort of mind control? Or, maybe al Qaeda is a US government organization–you know–that organization that is used to put the fear of God back into people post Soviet Union nuclear holocaust…?

I think the idea that flight 93 was shot down is much more plausible than a massive gov’t conspiracy to crash planes into buildings. If I was the president, I don’t know if I would want to publicly announce that I or my subordinate military commanders ordered a civilian aircraft to get shot down.

Most 9/11 conspiracy theorist believe there are questions that remain unanswered and which merit investigation. I have not stated that I believe the government was behind 9/11.

I do believe there is more to the story than we have been told, and there are unanswered questions that merit investigation.

most experts that have looked into the world trade centers have looked into it in order to proove the governments theory, not refute the governments theory. However, there are still experts that support the fact there are unanswered questions which means further investigation should take place:

Steven Jones:
Published paper has not been debunked. It is solid to the best of my knowledge.

Mario Fontana:
We simply don’t know what exactly happened in WTC 7,? said Mario Fontana, sitting Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction at ETH-Zurich. At conferences of structural analysis experts one has discovered only very little on the collapse of WTC 7. It is at least thinkable that a long, on-going fire could have caused the collapse of the building, according to Fontana

NIST has no idea why WTC7 collapsed:
FEMA forwarded the WTC 7 file to the government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) . Whereupon unsettled Americans and journalists called and wanted to know from NIST why WTC 7 collapsed. ?I don’t understand this fascination people have with WTC 7,? retorted NIST speaker Michael Newman in March 2006

Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction:
?In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished,? says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also J?rg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that ?the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished.?

Metal taken away without criminal investigation:
To find out whether fire or demolition led to the collapse of WTC 7, one would have had to examine the steel beams. But they’re gone. ?Over 80% of the WTC steel has already been sold, most, if not all, before the scientists and criminologists could examine it,? protested Anthony Weiner, US Representative from New York, in March 2002 in the US Congress. The steel was recycled in Asia

Professor Frederick Mowrer of the University of Maryland’s Fire Protection Engineering Department, who, together with other experts, had to investigate the collapse of the WTC buildings, criticized this action sharply: ?I find the speed with which important evidence was taken away and recycled alarming.?

In the US, FEMA produced an interim report in May 2002 explaining that WTC was a completely custom building. The Pentagon, the CIA and the US Secret Service had rented portions of the building. In the basement were large diesel generators to supply the building with energy during emergencies. It was ?presently still unknown,? according to the conclusion of FEMA, ?how the fire could have caused the collapse of the building.? The New York Times commented that WTC 7 was the ?great secret? of the attacks, because until that day in the US a building made of steel and concrete had never collapsed due to fire.

Peter Forster, President of the Swiss federal Konsultativkommission f?r innere Sicherheit (Consultative Commission for Interior Security), emphasizes that it is also very important for Switzerland to know if the ?war against terrorism? is a subterfuge for capturing energy resources.

Enough sources?

[quote]Petedacook wrote:

Steven Jones:
Published paper has not been debunked. It is solid to the best of my knowledge.
[/quote]

Actually, he has been debunked. The guy isn’t even trained in the field. And, has never worked in the field. Structural and Civil Engineers from his own college laughed at him. By the way, what reputable peer reviewed Journal has his paper been published in? Last I had heard, none.

I"m not sure how long agon this quote was made. We know now with all the video, photographic, and fire fighter testimony, that major stuctrual damage was done to WTC 7. And, read the words I bolded. We also know the FD gave up fighting the fires. They burned for hours.

Actually, they have a pretty strong working hypothesis. The review and research on the matter is underway, so no definite statements are forthcoming. They report that it’ll be spring 2007, when they release a draft report. So the statements above are very misleading.

How long ago were these quotes? Read the bolded words, that’s why I’m asking. There has been lots of photographic evidence of the damage done to the building. One corner was gutted out from the 18 floor down. I’ll post some stuff on WTC 7 in a bit.

This is obviously an outdate statement. Read above. The review and report are still underway. That’s why there are no definitive statements. And the last statement isn’t bringing into consideration the structrual damage.

No, they weren’t very good sources. Read above. The only one that has put forth a paper, Jones, isn’t even qualified. And, has already been debunked. And, I’d ask, what reputable scientific Journal did he end up getting his demolition paper published in? Last I hear, none.

Firefighters were apparently part of the WTC 7 conspiracy…
Read what they had to say about it’s probable collapse, fire, and damage done to it.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn?t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we?re heading east on Vesey, we couldn?t see much past Broadway. We couldn?t see Church Street. We couldn?t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we?ll go down, let?s see what?s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what?s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn?t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 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 hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we?re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because 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 Brandies 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. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we?ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day."

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Ryan_William.txt
“Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o’clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we’ve] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy… The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn’t] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that’s] when 7 collapsed… Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess.” - Lieutenant William Ryan

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt
Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area – (Q. A collapse zone?) – Yeah – be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn’t have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt
The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was 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, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o?clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o?clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that?s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn?t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7? did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn?t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn?t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn?t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o?clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that?s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that?s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn?t seem so bad. But that?s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn?t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody? My feeling early on was we weren?t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn?t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn?t go further north on West Street. And I couldn?t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.