WTC7 questions

Like everyone else, I am trying to piece all this information together but there are outstanding questions, to which I can't find answers.

Who would call WTC7 the Saloman Brothers Building? Was it commonly known by that name in NYC? Did CNN call it by that name?

Let's say that there was general concern that afternoon about the stability of WTC7 due to damage but why wasn't there the same concern reported about the other buildings, which had been more damaged? Why didn't we hear that those buildings were in danger of collapse? If they weren't in danger of collapse, how did they know that?

Who made the decision that WTC7 was about to collapse and on what evidence was this based - general concern or visible movement or scientific measurements?

What time was it when that decision was made? If the BBC made a mistake and interpreted 'about to collapse' as 'has collapsed', then they had that news close to 16.50 NYC time. What time did CNN report the imminent collapse?

When those firemen were told to leave the area due to the imminent collapse of WTC7, were other firemen moved away from the other WTC buildings, which were more damaged? If not, why not?

Did Jane Standley and that news team see WTC7 fall? She was standing in front of the window just a few minutes before - what bad luck if they just missed it...

Following the collapse of WTC7, what tests/precautions were taken re: the other WTC buildings? After 3 collapses, wouldn't there be a very strong possibility that they would all collapse?

All answers/thoughts welcome.

found two answers

It appears that the building was called Salomon Brothers building on several websites prior to 9/11.

CNN reported it has collapsed or is collapsing at approx 16.15 NYC time.

Researching further using Paul Thompson's timeline

Some input

"Salomon Brothers Building" stems from its main tenant, Salomon Smith Barney. List of tenants.

Why the concerns of collapse were apparently limited to WTC7 is left to speculation. Personally, I've seen nothing to suggest 3-6 were treated similarly, but I don't claim omniscience.

Reports about WTC7's imminent collapse were disseminated by fire department commanders, afaik. We don't know if they got word from some higher authority, but I would assume they did, as there was nothing tangible to suggest it would collapse.

Most likely, Jane Standley witnessed the collapse after her feed was terminated, but I wouldn't count on her spilling the beans unless subpoena'd.

About the rest of your questions, I don't know...

You'd think the secret

You'd think the secret service, the IRS and the CIA would all be loudly expressing their "Goddamnit"'s over the loss of their records. That should really have put a serious crimp in their operations. Accuracy and all that. Must have a LEGION of accountants, bookkeepers and archivists working to reconstruct as much as possible. Should be nearly done by now.

Anyone heard of this massive archival reconstruction? Just curious...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "Expected Collapse" by JamesB


Did they mention what caused that damage?

You'd think a huge chuck of the falling tower would have had to impact that side of the building to cuase that significant damage. It should have been visible.

there should be some photos of the opening showing what caused that damage.

Or was the damage caused by an explosion. triggered as the towers collapsed.
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Show "Get a clue buddy" by JamesB

Get a life Jamesbutthead plus Chuckle Head

James your A sellout you actually believe the government story ? Building 7 was a controled explosion no doubt about it. Stop attacking people 99% of people who study 911 dont believe in the stupid theory of faked video or the planes not hitting WTC. Your a waste of time you will never convince any one on this site of youe pathitic lies and nonsense therory of the government chuckleheads

If 7 collapsed from the fire & damage...

What do you think caused the pre-collapse explosions? What was the "clap of thunder" sound that was heard a few seconds prior?


I do find it strange that building 7...if damaged in that way..... ripping a 20 story hole in the building that nobody got hurt or killed

and there are no pictures of the damage to the building
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Hey Jimbo

you seem to be pretty well informed on the mysterious gaping hole in WTC7 - are you speaking of this? And can you explain why it doesn't seem to be visible here?

Swamp gas?

You know what stands out the

You know what stands out the most in that pic is all the windows blown out around the 23rd floor?
OEM office?

James is cleverer than we give him credit for

Observe, just like our Mark Roberts, he never bothers to learn about the subject matter to talk about it in nuts and bolts terms. He justs throws quotes back, with links--not a sign of shilling all by itself, but, by not sharing his own personal thought processes, he reveals nothing by getting a debater to reveal everything. That's a power play: it's intention is to frustrate and disrupt.

JamesB, and Patrick, are much more sophisticated than most of their fans. And, usually, they know how to play them by hitting all the right dis-info notes, on both sides of the debate. Honestly, I don't think either Patrick or James have a personal opinion, considering their opinions change according to what's working for them at the moment.

How often do they spend per day blogging SLC? Why did they register soon after we banned anonymous posts? (Pat registers under Brainster) Answer: they were posting unregistered before and decided it was worth it to continue to have access. And hey, now they can vote down comments like this one!

James: Our Alex once ask me why I come to SLC. I told him that I often wondered the same about your lot. So, while your here, why don't you share with the mates why exactly you went as far as registering just to post at 911Blogger:

Go on love, we're listening:

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Maybe , your infinate

Maybe , your infinate wisdom,could explain how if the damage was to 20 lower floors on the south side, that could reasonably explain the northwest and northeast corners of the building failing symetricly?
No one denies WTC7 was heavily damaged. The question is, what damage could eplain the sudden
failure of thousands of bolts and welded connections that were nowhere near the damaged areas of the building.
Iron DOES NOT just give up all its strength at once!
Had fires caused the collapse, it would have been slow, as the iron heated and distorted.
Also, WTC7 was originaly designated to be used
as a triage area for the injured evacuated from the towers. (this can be verified in the Naudet film) Since there are no reports of any injured being treated in WTC7 I would say an order had to come down from somewhere to use a differant area BEFORE the collapse of the towers. Which means (to me at least)
...WTC7 was gonna come down, as planned.
The fires burned for so long to make sure anything that needed to be destroyed (ie evidence, SEC files)
was completely destroyed to the point that rescue workers wouldnt stumble on anything that could be used to incriminate the insiders.

"with fire on several floors. "

This quote actually helps our case. The "debunkers" try to claim the whole building was an inferno. This man was close to the building and describes several floors. What is "several?" Three to six?

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--