World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

a reply to: skyeagle409

That is not evidence that explosives were involved and the proof lies in the fact that not one of your 500 witnesses produced evidence of explosives. That is because the sounds they heard were attributed to things that had nothing to do with explosives, which is understandable considering that there are no sounds of explosions in any WTC video.

Lets say a man in Time Square walked into a crowed during News Years Eve, the whole event is being televise.

Thousands of people are there celebrating the count down.

This man pulls out a gun and shoots 5 people, the camera crew films him shooting all five people.

500 eyewitness watched this man kill these 5 people.

The police start canvassing the crowd and eyewitness go on record stating they saw the man shoot the 5 people.

The whole world watched in horror on live television the whole event.

Just because five hundred eyewitness did not have the gun man gun, or his bullets doesn't mean there is no evidence.

Millions of people all over the world watched on TV the crime unfolding.

Lets say, shortly after the shooting the government using our propaganda media claimed there was no shooting, there was no gun man, no bullets, and all 5 dead people are alive, yet none of the 5 people have ever been seen again.

Yet 500 eyewitness where at ground zero in Time Square and saw first hand the shooting take place and went on the public written record.

This analogy of 500 eyewitness who witness the WTC being blown to pieces is no different.

Millions of people watched in horror on television the WTC were blown to pieces, yet the government using the propaganda media claims what we saw on TV was a lie.

The government claiming the WTC just fell down and your eyes are lying to you.

The mainstream media ignores all 500 eyewitness accounts, because it does not support the OS narratives.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: bw1000

So tell me, if you think the WTC collapses are "not so surprising", how on earth can those buildings "fall" through a network of many, thick columns of extremely strong steel and concrete at very nearly the same rate as the cannon falling just against air resistance alone? As if there was nothing but air in the wa of the "falling" penthouse of the WTC buildings?

First of all, the WTC buildings did not fall at near free fall speed. Secondly, let's take a look how easy for a steel frame building to fall. Go to this video and jump to time line 1:48.

Look what happened to a 21-story steel frame building that collpased during an earthquake.

21-story Steel Frame Building Collaped during Earthquake

Why would you post that video to compare it to the twin Towers?
Do you think people in nthis forum who respect the good and the right are the dumbest people in endlessness?
Do you think anyone on earth will recognise any comparison or similarity between that video and the WTC towers?

If you do, it's, well, I have to say, funny, I guess. Who'd have believed the NIST lovers would get so bizarre and kooky and surreal. You're actually a comedy now.

However, back to real life and I really feel I would be one of the dumbest persons on earth to take you seriously enough to make another reply to your barmy stuff.

Bizarre.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: bw1000

So tell me, if you think the WTC collapses are "not so surprising", how on earth can those buildings "fall" through a network of many, thick columns of extremely strong steel and concrete ...

Your perception of the building is wrong.
It was only floor truss after floor truss.
The same thing that holds up the roof for most Walmarts.

Ask your local fire department if they would enter a burning Walmart.
I'll bet the answer is unequivocal NO.
Watch Youtube vids of how they fight Walmart type store fires.
They put hoses on the top of ladders and let them pour.

---

OK. I'll go and ask them, sir. Sure.

Hahahahahaha.

You live in a funny dream. Walmart trusses pretended as actually amazingly strong steel columns and interior and exterior reinforced steel networks which held up the one time highest building on earth.

I didn't know Walmarts were designed to withstand both a hit by a commercial jet plane and the hottest fires (including of course fires created by said airliners with their fuel).
I'm almost jealous - your dreamworld seems splendid and rather comforting in its simplicity.
Quite appealing, except of course for that there is the real world, and truth, and your dreamworld is, compared to that, either something pitiable or laughable when I remember the seriousness of this subject.

The things you don't know, even about Walmarts, if you just ask the right people. Who'd have thought? Are Bestbuys the same?

Just ask a local fireman, he'll tell you.

Yes, sir, I'm just going now down to my local fire station. Thank you. Have a good evening, yourself.

a reply to: bw1000

Why would you post that video to compare it to the twin Towers?

They are all steel frame buildings.

Do you think anyone on earth will recognise any comparison or similarity between that video and the WTC towers?

Yes, if they knew anything about steel structures and the temperature range that weakens steel. You see, it is like this; one of my expertise is in structures.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: bw1000

Why would you post that video to compare it to the twin Towers?

They are all steel frame buildings.

Do you think anyone on earth will recognise any comparison or similarity between that video and the WTC towers?

Yes, if they knew anything about steel structures and the temperature range that weakens steel.

---

Really?

a reply to: skyeagle409




LOL, there's your evidence in this video that Larry Siversten said PULL IT for WTC 7, I love it.

This is exactly what PULL IT means, to bring down a building and we can hears the demolition experts using the term PULL IT, in your own video.

a reply to: bw1000

Walmart trusses pretended as actually amazingly strong steel columns and interior and exterior reinforced steel networks which held up the one time highest building on earth.

You clearly don't understand the construction of the twin towers.
No other buildings were made with the tube in tube method.
No other building will ever be made that way either.

a reply to: Informer1958

LOL, there's your evidence in this video that Larry Siversten said PULL IT for WTC 7, I love it.

Just to let you know that "Pull It" doesn't apply to explosive demolition. Ask any demolition expert. "Pull" refers to the pulling down of a building with cables.

Silverstein were referring to the pulling out of firefighters, not the detonation of explosives. Ask his office.

a reply to: bw1000

Really?

That's right! Check it out in case you missed it.

Kader Toy Factory Fire

At about 4pm on May 10th, 1993, a small fire was discovered on the first floor of part of the E-shaped building. Workers were instructed to keep working as the fire was thought to be minor. The fire alarm in this building did not sound.

The building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed. This part of the building was dedicated to the storage of finished products and the fire spread quickly. Other parts of the factory were full of raw materials which also burnt very fast... Fire-fighters arrived at the factory at about 4:40pm, to find Building One about to collapse.

The Kader buildings,...collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures.

A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.

en.wikipedia.org...

I''ve heated aerospace steel to the soft condition at only 1000 degrees F.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Just to let you know that "Pull It" doesn't apply to explosive demolition. Ask any demolition expert. "Pull" refers to the pulling down of a building with cables.

Silverstein were referring to the pulling out of firefighters, not the detonation of explosives. Ask his office.

PULL IT means to bring down.




Liston to these demolition experts talk, they use the term PULL IT repeatedly while removing the debris pile from WTC 6.

Do you hear anyone in this video that you provided say everyone must leave?

a reply to: Informer1958

PULL IT means to bring down.

Now, are you implying that demo explosives were not used to bring down WTC 7 after all, but instead, cables were used to pull down WTC 7?

a reply to: skyeagle409

Now, are you implying that demo explosives were not used to bring down WTC 7 after all, but instead, cables were used to pull down WTC 7?

No, but you are.

Pull it means to bring down, plain and simple.

I am sure there are many ways to bring a building down.

I am sure PULL IT means, bring down a building by any means.

a reply to: Informer1958

No, but you are.

Pull it means to bring down, plain and simple.

Tell us, how do you pull down a building with explosives? Perhaps, you might contact a demolition expert so he can explain in detail, that it does not refer to demo explosives.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Tell us, how do you pull down a building with explosives? Perhaps, you might contact a demolition expert so he can explain in detail, that it does not refer to demo explosives.

CDI: 'Pull It' Means 'Pull It Down'

For those who still question what Larry Silverstein meant when he said "pull it" when talking about the collapse of the WTC 7, Jeff from PumpItOut.com called demolition experts Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) and asked them what "pull it" means in demolition terms. This is what CDI told him:

Female receptionist: Good afternoon, Loizeaux Company.
Jeff: Um, sorry, do I -- is this Controlled Demolitions?
CDI: Yes it is.
Jeff: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly -- just ask a question I had?
CDI: Well what kind of question?
Jeff: Well I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
CDI: Ok, what type of term?
Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?
CDI: "Pull it"?
Jeff: Yeah.
CDI: Hmm? Hold on a minute.
Jeff: Thank you.
CDI: Sir?
Jeff: Yes?
CDI: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.
Jeff: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.
CDI: Ok.
Jeff: Bye.
CDI: Bye.

killtown.blogspot.com...

Your question has been answered, a simple phone call was made and recorded and the question was asked.

Even demolition companies use the word PULL IT.

a reply to: Informer1958

You don't pull down a building with explosives

a reply to: skyeagle409

You don't pull down a building with explosives

Thank you for your "opinion".

Yes, it is a fact and the above video that you posted clearly demonstrates PULL IT means to bring down a building by any means.

A simple call was made and recorded to a Controlled Demolition Company.

The caller asked the question, what does PULL IT mean.

The reply was: to PULL IT DOWN, meaning by any means possible.

a reply to: Informer1958

The reply was: to PULL IT DOWN, meaning by any means possible.

Let's take a look at the rest of the story.

"pull it"

The term "pull it" means pull it over. The term isn't used much today, because of the modern equipment used by demolition contractors. Fifty years ago wrecking contractors were less affluent, they depended more on ingenuity in the work place than on equipment. This was especially true when large buildings were taken down with hand labor. In those situations most interior and exterior walls had to be cabled and "pulled" in onto floors.

Before you "pulled" the walls you would place old truck tires on the floor to cushion the shook and maintain the integrity of the floor your working on. In those days wrecking contractors would often attach cables to trucks or a dozer to collapse a section of a building or whole buildings. With advent of backhoes, skid loaders you don't have the need for cabling that you did in those days."

911review.org...

edit on 21-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: skyeagle409

Let's take a look at the rest of the story.

Does "Pull it" = controlled demolition?

Well, I did some very basic Google searching and on the website for Controlled Demolition, Inc. (www.controlled-demolition.com...) I found evidence that DOES link the terms "pull" and "pulled" to controlled, explosive demolition.

At this link (www.controlled-demolition.com...) the company describes:

"Utilizing a total of 137 pounds of linear shaped charges and 50 lbs of dynamite “kicker charges”, CDI worked in only the partial basement to the west, the Lobby Level and 4th floor of the structure. Placed in over 400 locations, the shaped charges were sequentially initiated over a period of 5.4 seconds, working from southwest to northeast through the structure. Following the seemingly endless 2.6 second natural pause in the non-electric initiation system, the structural charges detonated on cue, allowing the southwest wing of the structure to fail first, creating the desired lateral “pull” on the north and east curtain walls."

At this link (www.controlled-demolition.com...) the company describes:

"Approximately 2,700 lb. of explosives were placed in 2,918 holes on six levels of the structure. CDI’s delayed detonation of charges, the product of 50 years of explosives demolition experience, pulled the massive warehouse structure away from a U.S. Post Office facility only 18 -ft away without damage."
Also, here is a PBS/Nova interview of Stacey Loizeaux, who at the time was 26 years old and had worked for Controlled Demolition, Inc. since the age of 15.
Link: (www.pbs.org...)
Quote:
"NOVA: A common misconception is that you blow buildings up. That's not really the case, is it?
Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down."

At this link: (www.seattlepi.com...) Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., says this of the Seattle Kingdome demolition back in 2000:
"The roof did its job, the gravity engine worked. It provided the energy we needed to pull the columns inward."
There are just four examples... I bet I could find more.

911blogger.com...

a reply to: Informer1958

Does "Pull it" = controlled demolition?

There is nothing there that suggest the pull down of buildings with demo explosions. You misread where he said pull in the walls. That is not pulling down a building.

Now, for the rest of the story.

Dan Nigro: Chief of Department FDNY

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)

In other words, Silverstein had nothing to do with it.

a reply to: Informer1958

I found evidence that DOES link the terms "pull" and "pulled" to controlled, explosive demolition.

At this link (www.controlled-demolition.com...) the company describes:

I wanted to add this message.

Is "Pull" used by demolitions pros to mean "demolish with explosives?"

Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert with Protec, and contributor to ImplosionWorld.com, weighs in with his expert opinion:

We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.

In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pull-down of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring simultaneously throughout the site. /z6zyc

From the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts:
Four demolition and engineering experts tell Popular Mechanics that pull it is not slang for controlled demolition. "I've never heard of it," says Jon Magnusson of Magnusson Klemencic Associates.

Ron Dokell, retired president of Olshan Demolishing Company, says the same thing. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. adds that the only way he can imagine the term being used is in reference to a process where the legs of a structure are precut and attached to cables, and then large machines are used to literally pull the building to the ground.

sites.google.com...