KrisCool a écrit :
http://www.rense.com/general47/pulled.htm
On a ici le transcript exact:
Citation :
"I remember getting a call from the, er, 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 we watched the building collapse."
|
Sur cette page conspirationniste, on distingue les deux interprétations possibles:
- pull it en parlant des pompiers, à savoir un ordre de se retirer du building car le risque pour eux est trop grand
- pull it en parlant du building, dans le sens de le démolir
Arguments en faveur de l'interprétation officielle:
O1 - Silverstein parle dans son commentaire du lourd tribut en vies humaines déjà payé
O2 - En quoi démolir le bâtiment aurait-il sauvé plus de vies qu'en le laissant brûler avec un périmètre de sécurité ?
O3 - Comment s'assurer que la démolition va se passer dans de bonnes conditions, et notamment que le building va pas se casser la gueule sur un autre ? D'autant plus qu'il n'y avait que quelques heures de temps disponibles pour placer des charges dans un building en flammes.
Arguments en faveur de l'interprétation complotiste
C1 - L'écroulement du WTC7 est suspect et n'a pu se produire sans intervention extérieure
C2 - Le même terme de "pull" a été utilisé par les équipes qui ont démoli le WTC6 après les attentats
C3 - Pourquoi tous les pompiers, secouristes et personnes sur place ont témoigné qu'ils savaient que le building allait s'écrouler ?
C4 - Aucun building de ce type ne s'est effondré à cause du feu.
Citation :
Firehouse Magazine Reports - WTC: This Is Their Story
► Captain Chris Boyle: "After that, we headed to Vesey and Broadway. Thats where (Deputy) Chief (Tom) Haring was. He was starting to put together a command post.
Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didnt know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didnt 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 didnt 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, were going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didnt look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasnt really keen on the idea. Then this other officer Im standing next to said, that building doesnt look straight. So Im standing there. Im looking at the building. It didnt look right, but, well, well go in, well 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, nobodys going into 7, theres 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, well head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
So we got water to 22, but then thats when they said all right, number 7 is coming down, shut everything down. I dont know what time that was. It was all just a blur.
Firehouse: Did they shut the tower lines and remove them from there?
Boyle: No, just left them. Everything was left where it was. Just shut everything down, moved everybody back.
Firehouse: Could you see building 7 again from there?
Boyle: Seven, no. You got a half block away, you couldnt see it, couldnt see a damn thing. All we heard was they were worried about it coming down, everybody back away." -Firehouse Magazine (08/02)
► Firefighter Marcel Claes: "We were kept away from building 7 because of the potential of collapse." -Firehouse Magazine (04/02)
► Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: "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 oclock in the afternoon, but by about 2 oclock 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 thats 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 didnt make any attempt to fight it. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there.
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 didnt want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasnt even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didnt 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 oclock 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, thats a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean thats a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didnt seem so bad. But thats what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didnt want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody
" -Firehouse Magazine (04/02)
► Battalion Chief John Norman: "I started to go down Vesey toward West, but there was a lot of debris blocking the way and they were telling me no, you dont want to go down there theyre worried about that building collapsing. I looked at 7 World Trade Center. There was smoke showing, but not a lot and Im saying that isnt going to fall. So I went up Church Street two more blocks and went across to West and went right down behind 7 and got a good look at three sides. From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldnt really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.
Firehouse: Could you see if there was a lot of debris in the street after the building came down?
Norman: Yes, thats why we couldnt walk down Vesey. But I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did, 7.
Now were still worried about 7. We have guys trying to make their way up into the pile, and theyre telling us that 7 is going to fall down and that was one of the directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot radius from that building." -Firehouse Magazine (05/02)
► Chief Joseph Pfiefer
Firehouse: "Were you watching 7 World Trade Center?
Pfiefer: Yes, I watched 7. At one point, we were standing on the west side of West Street and Vesey. And I remember Chief Nigro coming back at that point saying I dont want anybody else killed and to take everybody two blocks up virtually to North End and Vesey, which is a good ways up. And we stood there and we watched 7 collapse.
Dennis Tardio was coming down the C stairs in building 7. At about the 9th or 10th floor, he met my brother Kevin, who told Dennis, you cant get down these stairs, there was all sorts of debris. He directed him to the B stairs and, according to Captain Tardio, they got out of the building and 30 seconds later it started collapsing. If they would have continued in the same stairs, there was no way they would have been out. Im not too sure if my brother stayed there a little longer and directed more companies along with his guys or he was doing what firemen do, make sure all the brothers get out.
Firehouse: Did they all get killed?
Pfiefer: Yes." -Firehouse Magazine (04/02)
► Battalion Chief Tom Vallebuona: "I couldnt get rid of that feeling like everything is going to collapse. 7 World Trade Center I couldnt even watch that. I said thats enough. I refused to watch that.
We thought 7 World Trade Center was going to fall and push the side of the World Trade Center that was still standing, and then it was going to go into 90 and I thought the scaffold was going to fall and cover the block and kill another 30 people." -Firehouse Magazine (08/02)
► Deputy Chief Nick Visconti: "I dont know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didnt see any fire at that time.
Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come theyre not trying to put this fire out? I didnt realize how much they had because my view was obstructed. All I could see was the upper floor. At some point, Frank Fellini said, now weve got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and thats on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, youve got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, weve got to get those people out of there.
I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, weve still got people here, we dont want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didnt want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didnt get hit by a plane, why isnt somebody in there putting the fire out?
I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank. He said, were moving the command post over this way, that buildings coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasnt bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.
I said, that building is not coming this way, you could see where it was going, but I was concerned about debris. I heard later on that somebody got trapped in the debris of 7, but I dont know.
Firehouse: Five oclock is when Tower 7 came down.
Visconti: Five or 5:30. I was saying its good to know whos here, but theres no imminent collapse, theres nothing hanging over us. Its more stable. I said OK, pick out six or seven guys and walk over this way, well pick up some, well get over there." -Firehouse Magazine (08/02)
|
La contre-argumentation à la thèse conspirationniste est simple
C1 -> Premièrement, l'écroulement est suspect uniquement si on omet que le building a brûlé pendant plusieurs heures et que sa facade a été endommagée. Comme on peut le voir sur cette page comprenant de multiples sources et photos montrant que le WTC7 était bien la proie des flammes, dans tout le bâtiment. Ce site indique que l'écroulement n'est pas plausible en raison de l'asymétrie des dégâts faits au bâtiment. En l'occurence, que l'écroulement "sur l'emplacement du batîment" n'est pas plausible. Le rapport fait état d'un écroulement "vers l'intérieur" de la façade, qui expliquerait la répartition des débris.
Je reconnais que ça mériterait qu'on regarde de plus près, néanmoins au vu des clichés, des vidéos et des témoignages concordants des pompiers, il me paraît indubitable qu'il y avait bien un incendie dans le bâtiment, et que celui-ci a duré plusieurs heures. Celà invalide donc directement l'argument selon lequel le bâtiment n'avait reçu que des dégâts légers.
C2 -> Le verbe "to pull" possède plus d'une dizaine de sens différents en anglais, selon le contexte et les adverbes utilisés avec. Autant il n'est pas étonnant que des démolisseurs l'aient effectivement utilisé, autant ça ne prouve en rien que Silverstein l'ait utilisé dans le même sens.
A noter, pour la bonne blague, que le pompier Peter Hayden utilise de nombreuses fois le terme "pull" pour parler du retrait des pompiers. Cette citation n'est jamais mise en avant par les conspirationnistes losqu'ils discutent de ce terme. C'est une omission flagrante dans le raisonnement.
C3 -> Les pompiers sont arrivés sur place mais n'ont pas combattu l'incendie à ce moment là, d'abord parce que l'eau manquait dans le secteur, mais aussi parce que les dégâts à l'immeuble paraissaient trop importants. Je cite le rapport de la FEMA:
Citation :
It appeared that water on site was limited due to a 20-inch broken water main in Vesey Street. Although WTC7 was spinklered, it did not appear that there would have been a sufficient quantity of water to control the growth and spread of the fires on multiple floors. In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC7 from the collapsing towers.
|
Le feu a brûlé pendant 7 heures, avec les pompiers pour observer le bâtiment et leur évolution. Pour eux, la zone n'est pas sûre. Hayden toujours lui dit qu'il était inquiet de voir des pompiers dans certaines zones "peu sûres" au cas où d'autres bâtiments s'écrouleraient ("secondary collaspses" ). Dans l'esprit de certains pompiers, ça n'est même pas spécifiquement le WTC7 qui est dangereux, mais tous les bâtiments à proximité, dont on ne sait pas à quel point ils ont pu être endommagés par l'effondrement des WTC1 et WTC2. Les pompiers ont à ce stade perdu plus de 300 hommes.
Quelle est la décision logique ? Les témoignages concordent: craignant un possible effondrement, même sans certitude, les pompiers se retirent par précaution. Les complotistes qui jugent étrange ce retrait devraient se demander quelle était la décision la plus rationnelle que pouvaient prendre les pompiers à ce stade. Ils ne pouvaient pas combattre l'incendie dans l'immeuble, le feu allait donc se poursuivre jusqu'à ce qu'il s'éteigne de lui même, ou que le bâtiment s'effondre. La seule chose qui restait aux pompiers était de sécuriser un périmètre autour du bâtiment, et de se tenir prêt au cas où le feu risquerait de se propager ailleurs.
C'est ce qu'ils ont fait.
C4 -> Aucun building de ce type n'a été laissé livré aux flammes. En l'occurence, les précédents de ce type sont des cas où le feu a été combattu, pas des cas où le feu a ravagé le bâtiment pendant des heures sans être arrêté.
Voilà pour le "pull it" et la démolition du WTC7.
Une limite cependant, l'effondrement mériterait une étude plus détaillée, du même genre que l'étude PDF postée par Cardelitre sur les deux tours. Il reste certes encore des zones d'ombre, mais les arguments en faveur de la démolition contrôlée sont trop légers pour constituer des preuves.
|
FORUM HardWare.fr
![[:lazar]](https://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/lazar.gif "[:lazar]")
![[:ddr555]](https://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/ddr555.gif "[:ddr555]")
![[:bien]](https://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/bien.gif "[:bien]")
et quand 20min apres, pas de nouvelles images du pentagone et le journaliste "black out gouvernemental sur les images du pentagone en flammes" on s'est dit "ok, en pleine journée, 2 avions et chacun une tour, le pentagone en flamme et black out des medias, on n'est pas au bout de nos surprises"
![[:rofl]](https://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/rofl.gif "[:rofl]")
![[:dodo]](https://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/dodo.gif "[:dodo]")
![[:cmshadow]](https://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/cmshadow.gif "[:cmshadow]")
![[:cerveau dr]](https://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/cerveau dr.gif "[:cerveau dr]")
![[:spamafote]](https://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/spamafote.gif "[:spamafote]")
![[:vague nocturne]](https://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/vague nocturne.gif "[:vague nocturne]")
- passe encore, tu n'es pas le premier. En revanche, refuser d'envisager que tu te plantes, ça ne plaide aucunement pour toi…