WTC 7 - controlled demolition within 9 hours -> weird?

Hello everyone,

this is my fist post - so please bear with me.

WTC 7 collapsed at 5:30PM, almost 9 hours after the first plane hit the north tower. Larry Silvestein (WTCs lease owner) said in TV interview that they decided (with fire dept. commander) to ``pull it'', because they thought that the firemen will be not able to contain the fire.

So after 9 hours in that massive chaos they were able to place charges and prepare a controlled demolition?

Guys what is your opinion on this?

He didn't say that they demolished the building. He could have meaned that they pulled firemen ouf of the building, because it was about to collapse.

Originally posted by msdos464
He didn't say that they demolished the building. He could have meaned that they pulled firemen ouf of the building, because it was about to collapse.

Hmmm, I don't think so..

"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."

I found this website - you can also find MP3 audio from TV interview there.

I know that.. but still - he didn't say that they would demolish the building.

"they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Who made and when? It would help a lot

"....and then we wathced..." sounds like there wasn't much time between the decision and the collapse. But you can ever know for sure.

Welcome to ATS!

There are actually quite a lot of threads on this already, here is one of the older ones from January 2004:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you click on the search button and type in WTC 7 in the Google search box (I can't work that boolean thing personally!) then it will bring a load up! happy hunting!

Ok.. I'll continue talking there.

It makes sense to me building seven was demolished by the fire department or other experts that afternoon. The question is, "What event caused that damage to the south-west corner of the building?''

If WTC 7 was pulled, then you can bet the entire chain of command was asked for and given the OK. Remember WTC 7 was CIA Central in New York City.

Originally posted by msdos464
He didn't say that they demolished the building. He could have meaned that they pulled firemen ouf of the building, because it was about to collapse.

There were no firemen in the building and the place had already been evacuated hours earlier.

"Pull it" is a common phrase used when speaking of demolishing a building. Firefighters do not use the term.

So after 9 hours in that massive chaos they were able to place charges and prepare a controlled demolition?

Guys what is your opinion on this?

The demolition charges would have had to have been placed in the building earlier, just as they would've had to have been for the two towers. Demolitions can take months of planning. They don't happen in a matter of hours or willy nilly, especially when a building is on fire, and yet a demolition is what Silverstein admitted to, and it's precisely what the two tower collapses are consistent with.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
There are actually quite a lot of threads on this already, here is one of the older ones from January 2004:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks!

I will move there..

It may not have been that difficult to have brought down WTC 7 a few hours after it was determined to be structurally unstable.
The government may have teams on call to do this sort of thing in order to secure the hard drives and documents in sensitive government buildings. If a government building was damaged in an earthquake, the building would have to be pulled and the remains transported to a secure location so that sensitive material would not be compromised. Ground zero was declared a war zone the next day with the military securing the area. An expert demolition team with blueprints showing where to place the explosives could be called within a matter of hours to do the job.

He said "pull it" not "pull them".

Source
Used to refer to that one previously mentioned. Used of a nonhuman entity; an animate being whose sex is unspecified, unknown, or irrelevant; a group of objects or individuals; an action; or an abstraction: polished the table until it shone; couldn't find out who it was; opened the meeting by calling it to order.

I find it hard to believe, in that context he is talking about anything other than the building. I have ran it passed several friends of mine who have a degree in English and they all agree with me he is talking about the building and not the firemen.

It may not have been that difficult to have brought down WTC 7 a few hours after it was determined to be structurally unstable.
The government may have teams on call to do this sort of thing in order to secure the hard drives and documents in sensitive government buildings. If a government building was damaged in an earthquake, the building would have to be pulled and the remains transported to a secure location so that sensitive material would not be compromised. Ground zero was declared a war zone the next day with the military securing the area. An expert demolition team with blueprints showing where to place the explosives could be called within a matter of hours to do the job.

Would it not be more logical to assume the explosives had already been placed, considering the time frame and size of the building, as well as the current emergency situation of the WTC complex?

I find it hard to believe, in that context he is talking about anything other than the building. I have ran it passed several friends of mine who have a degree in English and they all agree with me he is talking about the building and not the firemen.

Yeah, the alternate interpretations of that quote are pretty weak. Especially so since in the very same statement, he declares that they weren't even going to try to fight the fire, but "pull it" instead, and of course the buildings had already been evacuated much earlier. I always thought the statement was pretty clear standing alone.

Think of it this way:

9/11 Official Story supporters will happily link to a video of a computer simulation that was made AFTER the fact with building plans and information supplied by the government in order to prove the result they are trying to sell. Even thou a computer sim made after the fact without all the evidence is ALWAYS going to be bias if an expected result is needed because not all variables will be known so they'll have to be estimated.

Now assuming these official sims are created using the SAME plans that the buildings were built from (if they aren't then all sims post-911 are pure speculative bollocks) even when the government won't release said plans, then those very same plans would be able to be used to create a simulation which tells the government EXACTLY where charges will need to be placed to bring the building down.

You plan a buildings destruction on a computer first, you won't need more than a week to set it up and low and behold they had that week prior to 9/11.

This could be proven if the government would release the WTC plans.
Auto-CAD the WTC over a couple years so it's perfect detail and use simple maths, physics and engineering to prove how many and where charges would need to be placed. Remember the PNAC'ers were asking for a New Pearl Harbor event as early as 98, they had years to CAD the WTC building out and work the detonation.

The government won't release those plans because they know this is a fact. Instead they are keeping the buildings structure in the dark and telling us how it happened by finding a conclusion to a set idea.




[edit on 31-7-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

Would it not be more logical to assume the explosives had already been placed, considering the time frame and size of the building, as well as the current emergency situation of the WTC complex?

No, it would not be more logical.

There is no logic whatsoever in placing explosives in a building under an assumption that some day the building may be demolished. However, WTC 7 may have been build with that contingency in mind. Designated areas near columns may have been constructed in order to place explosives in case of an emergency. At some future time, all that would be needed would be the blueprints as to where to place the charges and the experts to do it.

WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell because of the planes impact, the burning fuel, and the weight of the stories above.

Originally posted by Hector
WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

Interesting, so the US Gov didn't want to clearly state that it was a demolition because then people could say - if WTC 7 was a demolition south/north tower could've been also?

Hector,

In my view, it would be illogical to attempt to place demolition charges in a building that is on fire, and more absurd considering the building came down flawlessly.

What makes it more illogical is that firefighters were not sent into the building to even fight the fires, and yet all charges would have to be in the right places for the building to go down as it did.

It's not obscure knowledge that if demolition charges are not properly placed, sections of the building coming down can easily collapse lopsided, spreading the damage to cover a much larger area and preventing the building from a clean, symmetrical and totally vertical fall. Even a single column left intact can offset the demolition of a building greatly, and especially a large skyscraper such as Building 7 of the WTC Complex.

From video sources, it is apparent that Building 7 underwent a clean, symmetrical and perfectly vertical demolition. That suggests all demolition charges were placed exactly where they needed to be to ensure this, even though the building was on fire.

So my request of you is, if it was actually more logical that the demolition charges were placed after WTC 1 and 2 had already fallen, then explain the following:

· How was anyone able to place all of the charges while the building was on fire on multiple floors?

· Why were firefighters not sent in to fight the fires if charges were really yet to be placed?

· How was the demolition planned and set up so quickly in a building so large when your average demolition takes at least a month of planning, especially given the already-existing damage and the emergency condition of the situation?

· How did the building come down flawlessly given that fires certainly would have obstructed access to many columns?

· Why were there no witnesses to government agencies or demolition crews entering and working inside of Building 7 on 9/11?

Further, of course, I doubt severely your here:

WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell because of the planes impact, the burning fuel, and the weight of the stories above.

What evidence do you have exactly in favor of the gravity-driven theory and opposed to the demolition theory?

Interesting, so the US Gov didn't want to clearly state that it was a demolition because then people could say - if WTC 7 was a demolition south/north tower could've been also?

I think you are right. The government felt it had to lie about the demolition of WTC 7. If they tried to explain why WTC 7 had to be ''pulled'' then it would just open a "can of worms". In a sense, the government is partly responsible for the growth of conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse of the Twin Towers.

· How was anyone able to place all of the charges while the building was on fire on multiple floors?

It is my understanding the fires were brought under control by the Fire Department. Why wouldn't they do this? The official government lie on the collapse of WTC 7 is that it fell because of a raging fire. Videos of the collapse do not support this. There was no fire when the building was pulled.

· How did the building come down flawlessly given that fires certainly would have obstructed access to many columns?

Well placed explosives by experts in demolition.

· Why were there no witnesses to government agencies or demolition crews entering and working inside of Building 7 on 9/11?

There probably were witnesses to those placing the charges, especially by the Fire Department. It is my understanding members of the NYC Fire Department have been told not to discuses the events of that day with the media. I think a court order to this effect was issued by the state of New York.

What evidence do you have exactly in favor of the gravity-driven theory and opposed to the demolition theory?

You will never convince me the Twin Towers fell via demolition. There was nothing controlled about the collapse of the Towers.

So the bulk of your evidence is apparently "why couldn't they?" and the fact that fires were not clearly visible upon the building's collapse. I hope you realize that's not very strong evidence. While I agree with you that Building 7 was demolished, I feel there were two other obvious demolitions hiding in plain sight that you're purposely ignoring.

You will never convince me the Twin Towers fell via demolition.

Not very open to possibilities, are we?

Maybe you can begin contributing to the WTC Challenge thread in Howard's absence.

How was anyone able to place all of the charges while the building was on fire on multiple floors?

It is my understanding the fires were brought under control by the Fire Department. Why wouldn't they do this? The official government lie on the collapse of WTC 7 is that it fell because of a raging fire. Videos of the collapse do not support this. There was no fire when the building was pulled.

Yes there was. And why Fire Department would demolish building??? It really isn't their job, and they don't have education for that.

"Videos of the collapse do not support this."

How come? Why they don't?