WTC 7 Serious Proof of Controlled Demoltions

One thing I think alot of you are overlooking is the fact that Silversein (the owner of the building) SAID in his own words to "pull" the building (a demolition phrase used to describe the taking down of large buildings).

How do you pull a building without WEEKS of prep time? How can one get into such a damaged building and effectively place explosives within one day?

www.wtc7.net...

www.prisonplanet.com...

You say you wanted concrete facts, yet some of you are ignoring the facts that are merely inches from your own nose.

I agree with the OP, there is no doubt in my mind at all, whatsoever, that there were explosives placed in the building(s) well ahead of time. Conclusion: controlled demolition.

reply to post by IvanZana


Well, I dunno if I would call that a "failed controlled demolition" but I would certainly call it a deliberate one anyway. A good example regardless.

Don't forget that the OKC building had ONE, and I repeat, ONE column in tact that held the rest of that building up. Makes one really go...hmmm....doesn't it? When we are suppossed to believe that damage to one facade and sporadic fire can fell a building totally.

Originally posted by Grock
One thing I think alot of you are overlooking is the fact that Silversein (the owner of the building) SAID in his own words to "pull" the building (a demolition phrase used to describe the taking down of large buildings).

No he didn't. He says "they [fire department] made the decision to pull"

So, if pull means demolish, then your theory requires that the fire department made that decision.

Edit: And "pull" is not a "demolition phrase" having anything to do with explosive CD. If you're going to make claims like that, provide your source.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by nicepants]

So let's rehash this again.

The evidence presented that WTC 7 is a CD is that it "looks like one", and that other buildings of different designs, and in completely different circumstances acted differently. And of course there is Ivan who almost always posts incorrect information such as his claim of a 7 seconds collapse when the collapse was actually 18 seconds and at the time of his collapse initiation much of the inside of the building had already collapsed. In other words he is trying to claim that the outer collapse constitutes the entire collapse and wants to pretend the beginning of the collapse didn't exist.

So, has anyone considered going to the press or bringing up a lawsuit against the government for fraud by using these arguments? Anyone think this would hold water, simply saying "well it sure looked like a CD to me"?

And let's avoid the whole "pull it" argument which has been debunked 1000 times already in other threads. No need to beat a dead horse.

Originally posted by nicepants
Edit: And "pull" is not a "demolition phrase" having anything to do with explosive CD. If you're going to make claims like that, provide your source.

Really you say? How does Stacey Loizeaux of Controlled Demolitions, Inc. describe what they do?

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.

A lot of people, when they see a building implosion, expect it to go into its own basement, which is not always what the contractor wants. Sometimes the contractor wants to lay the building out like a tree. And, sometime, we need to bring down buildings that are actually touching other buildings.

NOVA: How do you do that?

SL: Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done.

NOVA: Do you get a thrill watching a building fall?

SL: Oh sure. I mean you really don't ever lose it. Your perspective changes. When I first started traveling with my Dad at fifteen, sixteen years old, I used to be awestruck. But you sort of go from that awestruck feeling to where you understand how the structure is coming down and you're watching for certain things—counting the delays or waiting for a part of the building to kick out or waiting for it to pull forward. So it does change, but it's always a rush.

www.pbs.org...

So, people want us to believe that demolition experts never use the word "pull" when describing what they do, but, yet we have here in one interview, a demolition expert saying "pull" 4 times when describing building demolition?

Are you people for real? Or is this all a joke to you?

And not one of them used the term pull in the way you are trying to Griff.


you won't find a single demolition expert who will tell you the term is used to implode a building on itself. The term means to attach cables to a building and pull it down to the side. That's why you are taking the term out of context in quotes where they aren't even remotely using it as a term.

And yet in firefighting terms it DOEs mean to pull out a firefighting effort, which is exactly what happened when Larry was talking to THE FIRE DEPT.

But yet you expect us to believe that the building owner who is never in a position to make such a call is talking to the fire dept who knows nothing about demolitions, using the wrong term? And doing so to save lives by demolishing a building?

Which part makes sense?

Originally posted by snoopy
The evidence presented that WTC 7 is a CD is that it "looks like one", and that other buildings of different designs, and in completely different circumstances acted differently.

Again, I thought you were the one who said that buildings on fire collapse all the time?

Funny how things are told differently when you want a different perspective eh?

And there is more evidence than just looking like one. How about structural engineering basics? How about people saying they heard explosions? how about this and that that I know you are not going to take into consideration.

Unless we have scientific data stating that there was explosive residue, you won't budge. So, I don't even know why i argue with people like you. Especially when you've already stated that even if residue was found, it could be atrributed to common materials in the buildings.

So, what kind of evidence are you looking for anyway?

And of course there is Ivan who almost always posts incorrect information such as his claim of a 7 seconds collapse when the collapse was actually 18 seconds and at the time of his collapse initiation much of the inside of the building had already collapsed. In other words he is trying to claim that the outer collapse constitutes the entire collapse and wants to pretend the beginning of the collapse didn't exist.

Going by this logic, the building has been progressively collapsing since erection.

Try looking at the main roof and how long it takes to collapse. That's all that matters.

And let's avoid the whole "pull it" argument which has been debunked 1000 times already in other threads. No need to beat a dead horse.

yes, let's avoid the smoking gun evidence shall we.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy


And let's avoid the whole "pull it" argument which has been debunked 1000 times already in other threads. No need to beat a dead horse.

yes, let's avoid the smoking gun evidence shall we.

Smoking gun evidence? He was talking to the FDNY...are you accusing them of being in on it?

[edit on 8-4-2008 by nicepants]

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.

Note that Stacey is not using the word "pull" as a term, just a description.

A lot of people, when they see a building implosion, expect it to go into its own basement, which is not always what the contractor wants. Sometimes the contractor wants to lay the building out like a tree. And, sometime, we need to bring down buildings that are actually touching other buildings.

NOVA: How do you do that?

SL: Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done.

NOVA: Do you get a thrill watching a building fall?

SL: Oh sure. I mean you really don't ever lose it. Your perspective changes. When I first started traveling with my Dad at fifteen, sixteen years old, I used to be awestruck. But you sort of go from that awestruck feeling to where you understand how the structure is coming down and you're watching for certain things—counting the delays or waiting for a part of the building to kick out or waiting for it to pull forward . So it does change, but it's always a rush.

Griff forgot to highlight all the correct words.

Originally posted by snoopy
And not one of them used the term pull in the way you are trying to Griff.


you won't find a single demolition expert who will tell you the term is used to implode a building on itself. The term means to attach cables to a building and pull it down to the side. That's why you are taking the term out of context in quotes where they aren't even remotely using it as a term.

What the hell are trying to do here?

She is specifically talking about implosions here:

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.

If you can't understand that she is talking about imploding buildings with explosives there, I'm sorry but there is NO help for you. Period.

But yet you expect us to believe that the building owner who is never in a position to make such a call is talking to the fire dept who knows nothing about demolitions, using the wrong term? And doing so to save lives by demolishing a building?

Which part makes sense?

First, Silverstein is a multimillionaire now because he is a real estate developer. Do you really want me to believe real estate developers don't know demolition terms? Come on.

Which part makes sense? Not the part where you want me to believe Lucky larry was pulling people when he said "it". Nor the part where you want me to believe he was talking about firefighting that had already be put on hold before speaking to him (as stated by chief Nigro).

Originally posted by nicepants
Smoking gun evidence? He was talking to the FDNY...are you accusing them of being in on it?

Who was he talking to? He makes a real effort to not let us know.

www.youtube.com...

Notice how he DOES NOT answer the question. Why Larry? Don't want to put your foot in your mouth again?

Yeah WTC 7 came down with CD no doubt. If you doubt that, ask ANYBODY who works your local LE bomb squad and has been to Alabama for training. That baby came down to make room for the cleanup, and too put the fire out.

Originally posted by snoopy
Griff forgot to highlight all the correct words.

How about highlighting what Silverstein said? Not just "pull" but "pull it". You are really getting on my nerves with your ignoramous arguments. Sorry to be blunt.

Again, I thought you were the one who said that buildings on fire collapse all the time?

Funny how things are told differently when you want a different perspective eh?

That is correct. Many steel structures have collapsed from fire alone and all firemen are aware that steel is always in threat of collapsing during fires. It's the whole reason they put fire protection on steel, to help prevent it from weakening in fires. This ias ALWAYS been the perspective, they don't change. it's funny though the arguments you wil come up with the distract form the fact that your only case is that something looked a certain way to you and that you haev NO physical evidence to support your claim.

And there is more evidence than just looking like one. How about structural engineering basics? How about people saying they heard explosions? how about this and that that I know you are not going to take into consideration.

The structural engineering basics don't support your claim. Again, there is no evidence to support your claim. And explosions are not evidence. You need to prove that explosions were from demolition devices as opposed to the 1000s of other causes found in all fires and such events. So unless you have some way to prove to us that the explosion sounds were actually from demolitions and not things like cracking steel, or generator tanks exploding, or electrical equipment exploding, or floors collapsing, etc etc....You don't have a case. No one is going to take imagination into consideration.

Unless we have scientific data stating that there was explosive residue, you won't budge. So, I don't even know why i argue with people like you. Especially when you've already stated that even if residue was found, it could be atrributed to common materials in the buildings.

Actually residue is not very reliable. Many of the contents are things found in the construction of the buildings. But the main point being that until someone can come up with something more than conjecture or speculation, the experts aren't going to concede a demolition just based on imagination. Is this what you want the scientists to do? Just go by your imagination? And why YOUR imagination? Why should they toss out all scientific method and replace it with imagination? How can you even expect them to do this?

So, what kind of evidence are you looking for anyway?

Anything beyond conjecture. But why don't you ask NIST? Those engineers have been unable to find any kind of evidence to support a CD. Are you going to dismiss them as simply being in on the big bad caper?

Going by this logic, the building has been progressively collapsing since erection.

Try looking at the main roof and how long it takes to collapse. That's all that matters.

Are we acting like children now? No, we're going by when the building actually started collapsing and not by the videos where the beginning of the collapse is intentionally cut off. We're also going by the siesmic records because a real scientists understands that a building doesn't just collapse form the outside. Things were happening on this inside and on the damaged side which wasn't visible from the video cameras. Although there is some footage of the damaged side where we can see damage that extends form top to bottom and gashes extending the entire hieght of the building and smoke coming from every floor.

If you use the FULL footage you can see that the penthouse and the center of the building collapse long before the outer collapse which is all that is shown in the tabloids versions of the videos. An the seismic evidence shows that collapsing was occuring even before the pent house collapsed.

yes, let's avoid the smoking gun evidence shall we.

If you think that larry referring to the term "pull it" is a smoking gun, then you can't be taken seriously. And I personally have a deep resentment for people like you who are blaming the firefighters for the attacks. The very men who lost their lives and you blame them. Shame on you.


[edit on 8-4-2008 by snoopy]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
Griff forgot to highlight all the correct words.

How about highlighting what Silverstein said? Not just "pull" but "pull it". You are really getting on my nerves with your ignoramous arguments. Sorry to be blunt.

Stop with the personal attacks to make up for your idiotic logic. He said IT because IT refers to the firefighting effort. It consists of more than just some men, but the whole effort. That means the whole process itself.

There's nothing wrong with being blunt, but it's important to get your facts right and not to use wild speculation.

"I remember getting a call from the ffire 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 then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

Building 7's Rubble Pile


Less than seven seconds after Building 7 began to implode, all that was left of the steel skyscraper was a rubble pile. The rubble pile is notable for several features:

* its location - It was centered around the vertical axis of the former building.
* its size - The pile from the 47-story building was less than two stories high.
* its tidiness - The pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building


What does the shape of the rubble pile indicate about the events leading to the collapse of building 7?

Consider the rubble piles produced by other collapses. The only examples of total collapses of steel frame highrises (excepting WTC 1, 2, and 7) involved either severe earthquakes or controlled demolition.
Total collapses due to earthquakes are extremely rare. The rubble piles of the few documented cases had none of the above features. 1
Total collapses due to controlled demolition generally have all of the above features. In fact, to achieve such a small, consolidated rubble pile is one of the main objectives of a controlled demolition.
www.wtc7.net...




Great, we all agree that WTC 7 was controlled demoltions.

Anyone care to entertain us with their wild idiotic, tabloid type of conspiracy on how World trade center 7 was brought down with anything but CONTROLLED DEMOLTIONS?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by nicepants
Smoking gun evidence? He was talking to the FDNY...are you accusing them of being in on it?

Who was he talking to? He makes a real effort to not let us know.

www.youtube.com...

Notice how he DOES NOT answer the question. Why Larry? Don't want to put your foot in your mouth again?

Probably because some punk kids were interrupting a presentation that had nothing to do with 9/11. Back to the original footage:

www.youtube.com...

"...and I remember getting a call from the fire department commander"

Originally posted by snoopy
And I personally have a deep resentment for people like you who are blaming the firefighters for the attacks. The very men who lost their lives and you blame them. Shame on you.

I personally have a deep resentment for people like you who have the gall to say they know everything even when proven wrong. Good day to you and you are being ignored from now on. I don't know why I even took you off the list. Thought that you might have something worthwhile to say. I guess not. back to ignore you go.