WAR: Former Bush Administration Economist Believes WTC Felled by Controlled Demolition

Originally posted by jimragan
So, the story is factual as reported but, he's an economist, not a structural/demo expert. Sounds like he's got an axe to grind. Or he's pushing for a book deal.

I agree, he is stateing how the WTC's collapsed, not why. I doubt he was "on up there" in the Bush Administartion, just a Pol/Econ officer that has made a name for himself since 9/11.

the former chief economist for the Department of Labor during Bush's first administration

He didn't even state why he believes what he does. Maybe if he would have done so it would have made his claims more believable and the WashingtonPost would have picked up his story aswell as the Washington Times.

subz
Also any one that has seen the collapse footage of WTC7 cannot say with a straight face that fire brought it down.

I can.

The longer a fire burns the hotter it gets, the fuel in the aircraft exploded, igniting everything in the offices, and unless you've never stepped foot into an office, you relize that its full of flammable items. and the fireproofing that was on the steel just blew off when the massive fireball hit it, and even steel can melt down in a inferno with no protection.

god damn conspiracy theories!

well Reynolds was right about the demolition of building #7. It was ordered to be demolished by the owner of the wtc. He even said so in an interview. But the mainstream media made it seem like it was the collapse of the towers that made building 7 collapse.....

Murcielago, WTC #7 was not one of the twin towers and was not hit by any plane. It was barely on fire and imploded from the roof inwards. That was not fire my friend.

Also you bemoan conspiracy theories yet you are on a conspiracy theorist forum

[edit on 16/6/05 by subz]

Also you bemoan conspiracy theories yet you are on a conspiracy theorist forum

This is true! A good point indeed

Originally posted by subz
Murcielago, WTC #7 was not one of the twin towers and was not hit by any plane. It was barely on fire and imploded from the roof inwards. That was not fire my friend.

Also you bemoan conspiracy theories yet you are on a conspiracy theorist forum

[edit on 16/6/05 by subz]

I was referring to the 2 main buildings...that were hit by planes.

yeah, yeah, yeah, I think this is why I usually stick with "Aircraft Projects".....less crazies.

WTC #7 was "pulled", the term for a controlled demolition used within the demolition industry.

Now, i'm unsure as to how long it takes in the US to take down a building of that size, but in the UK, if a building such as WTC#7 was scheduled for demolition. It takes a great deal of forethought and preparation, we are talking weeks if not months. This is because a full and thorough structural analysis is required for the placing of the explosive charges to ensure the buliding implodes as opposed to topples, leaning or falling in any other direction except down and in on it's self. Then the charges have to be, physically, set in place, in a buliding deemed structurally unsafe, this alone can take weeks.

I believe WTC#7 was "pulled" 6 or 7 hours after the initial impact on the Twin Towers.

The documentary "In Plane Sight" has interview footage of the Owner/Director of WTC#7, where he uses the term "pulled" indicating a controlled demolition. I will need to look at the documetary again to clarify the gentleman's name. Apparently he did quite well out of the insurance.

My real concern is this:
Damning Evidence for 9/11 Conspiracy

Yeah, WTC 7 collapsed just like the WTC 1 and 2, demolition style, if the beams indeed did get weakend, it would probably have fell over quite a bit, it collapsed a little too perfect, unless the WTC buildings had structral integrity sensors that would make explosives in the building explode or something, highly unlikely.

I'd also like to know, if there was indeed demo-explosions in the WTC, who placed them and how and did anyone notice suspicious activity?

Why was one of the floors on the WTC7 bldg completely armored and all that while other floors weren't?

Originally posted by Murcielago

subz
Also any one that has seen the collapse footage of WTC7 cannot say with a straight face that fire brought it down.

I can.

The longer a fire burns the hotter it gets

Thats a sig line waiting to happen

god damn debunkers!

Originally posted by subz
..................
Also any one that has seen the collapse footage of WTC7 cannot say with a straight face that fire brought it down. Not to mention the fact that prior to 9/11 NO steel structured building had ever fallen due to fire. Not once before 9/11 and not once since.

I saw it, couldn't believe what was happening but i saw it... and yes i can tell you with a straight face that the explosions from the other two towers, the fuel and burning debris which fell on WT7 and the subsequent fire that was started because of this did bring down the WT7.

Sorry to tell you this but I have heard some people in government say stupid things, which I do not believe for one second. I put this theory of this man claming it was all a demolition job in the same category as democratic senator Barbara Boxer claiming that communism is dead....the BS category.

I agree with jimragan and SportyMB on this. This man is not an expert and is making claims which he cannot corroborate.


[edit on 16-6-2005 by Muaddib]

I heard a guy phone in, and mentioned that, the night b4 9/11, the towers were DARK

I'm not sure if that is significant at all for sure , but it, is, curious

coulda just been the lightbulb guys for all I know

but he went on to say , that he looked at the towers on the way home everyday

and made a point to say that this never happened before [ being totally dark ]

problem is, demolitions takes weeks to plan and plant...not likely a crew did this overnight.

anyways , back to wtc7 , silverstein said on camera, they decided to pull the bldg.

wow ! so if in fact he just slipped and let it out that the bldg was demolitioned, he unwittingly inferred this was a planned operation, knowing that it traditionally takes weeks of planning and setting charges.

going a step further...seems if wtc7 fell like a demo, it sure looked like one to me [ and most likely was, according to silverstein ] and the towers fell like a demo

then they all were a demo !

why ? a needed excuse for war ? but again , why ?

the question we'll never get an answer to

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Yeah, WTC 7 collapsed just like the WTC 1 and 2, demolition style, if the beams indeed did get weakend, it would probably have fell over quite a bit, it collapsed a little too perfect, unless the WTC buildings had structral integrity sensors that would make explosives in the building explode or something, highly unlikely.
....................
Why was one of the floors on the WTC7 bldg completely armored and all that while other floors weren't?

I can't understand half of what you are trying to ask above.

What do you mean by "if the beams indeed did get weakend, it would probably have fell over quite a bit, it collapsed a little too perfect"?

Fell over quite a bit?... Can you explain what you are trying to say?

Originally posted by toasted
..............
anyways , back to wtc7 , silverstein said on camera, they decided to pull the bldg.

wow ! so if in fact he just slipped and let it out that the bldg was demolitioned, he unwittingly inferred this was a planned operation, knowing that it traditionally takes weeks of planning and setting charges.

Could you actually provide the "entire excerpt", and a link, where Silverstein said this?

Also the other member who claimed that someone told him the WTC was dark the day/night before....it would have made the news since I am sure more than one person would have noticed this.

BTW... the term pull them out, does not mean to bring down a building, but rather to order all firefighters out of a building... This happens when the chief sees they can't save a building or when things are too hot to send firefighters into a building....

Let me actually give an excerpt as to how firefighters use the term "pulled"

When the incident actually occurred, firefighters were pulled in from a large....

Excerpted from.
www.scotland.gov.uk...


[edit on 16-6-2005 by Muaddib]

The jury's still out on WTC1 and 2, suspicious as such a flawless destruction of two 110 storey buildings may be, but anyone who has convinced him/herself that WTC7 collapsed due to fire and damage from debris is experiencing denial, be it conscious or not.

Next will come the sincere assertions of how Silverstein's statement, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." was actually referring to pulling out the fire crews.

edit: I'm too slow, somebody already said it.


[edit on 2005/6/16 by wecomeinpeace]

perhaps if the topic was, former bush economist admits instead of believes this would be a neat topic but meh

Let me make it easier for everyone and put the statement of Silverstein...

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

When he says to pull, he means to pull his people, the firefighters, out and let the building burn. Ask any real firefighters what it means. Just go to your nearest firefighting station and ask them yourself if you want to make sure....


[edit on 16-6-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by toasted
..............
anyways , back to wtc7 , silverstein said on camera, they decided to pull the bldg.

wow ! so if in fact he just slipped and let it out that the bldg was demolitioned, he unwittingly inferred this was a planned operation, knowing that it traditionally takes weeks of planning and setting charges.

Could you actually provide the "entire excerpt", and a link, where Silverstein said this?

Also the other member who claimed that someone told him the WTC was dark the day/night before....it would have made the news since I am sure more than one person would have noticed this.

BTW... the term pull them out, does not mean to bring down a building, but rather to order all firefighters out of a building... This happens when the chief sees they can't save a building or when things are too hot to send firefighters into a building....

[edit on 16-6-2005 by Muaddib]

You have no clue what you are talking about.Most of what you say is rushish and untrue.Hell, even Howard would laugh at you.
Get your facts straight so you dont look like a fool.

For your first request:
Read it and weep

Since when would there be news headlines all over if the towers lights were off?Nobody cares about those things.It may catch the attention of some, but not enough to make CNN headlines

The term 'PULL IT' is INFACT a term used by demolition workers.Ask anyone who does it.I have 3 friends that work in the business and they always use that term.The term PULL OUT is used by firefighters.Ask a firefighter.

SMR....sorry to actually have to tell you this but demolition men are not firefighters.... firefighters also use the term pull...and it means to pull out of a building, to get out.....

If anyone is making a fool of themselves it is you.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
The explosion was a large incendiary explosion, it was not a military grade explosion, fires did not rage for that long, there was no towering inferno, infact, many people were trapped in the upper floor, they were suffocating, not burning to death, the explosion only created a large fireball from the kerosine, kerosine has a very high burning point and the fire would have little ogygen to fuel it at that altitude.

”at that altitude?”



So I guess that they never have fires in Denver, huh?

Off_the_Street made a good point that the fire could have become hotter because of all the stuff burning inside, but the lack of ogygen would not allow it to last long . . . ,

. . . Also, there has been pictures of people peering out of the cavity left by the plane, they could never have survived if there was a raging inferno.

How did they breathe if there was insufficient oxygen for a fire?

the beams were broken up in nice chunks that could be easilly transported by trucks.

That is because they were brought to the site on trucks when the building was built.

The explosion was powerful, but had no explosive power,

That is a contradiction in terms.

it was a fireball that created little vibration, a key ingredient in making a building collapse, demolition charges use C4, these explosions create vibrations rather than fireballs, C4 would not create big fireballs like in the movies.

No one has ever claimed that the fuel air fireball caused the buildings to collapse.

Who still wants to argue that the WTC wasn't an inside job? my mind is made up...

Yeah, we can see that.

Originally posted by Muaddib
SMR....sorry to actually have to tell you this but demolition men are not firefighters.... firefighters also use the term pull...and it means to pull out of a building, to get out.....

If anyone is making a fool of themselves it is you.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by Muaddib]

You didnt read my post did you?
The TERM PULL IT is used and has ALWAYS been used and COINED by demo personal.Firefighters on the other hand have coined the saying PULL OUT.
I have never once seen a firefighter say the words PULL IT in any interview or news cast or article.The only one ( with no evidence at all ) is so far this issue.
Infact, no firefighter said to PULL IT or OUT in this issue.Silverstein is the only one heard or seen saying any such term.

It's as if all the debunkers themselves put the term PULL IT and firefighters together.