The Great Fire of 1835 and Controlled Demolition

I've remained mostly an observer on the edges of the debate about the WTC, in part because, having been a resident in the city at the time, and having deep personal involvement in the aftermath, I've found it difficult to be sufficiently objective in forming an opinion. I'm also a highly skeptical person by nature -- which to me means questioning both sides with equal rigor, and there's frankly too much math I can't follow well for me to be able to truly assess the deeper arguments from either side. However, based on the evidence I have been able to evaluate to my satisfaction, I have come to believe that the probability of LIHOP is strong, and to suspect even more is possible.

Because I don't go very far into the world of WTC discussion, it's possible this has come up before and I haven't seen it. However, I don't recall anyone mentioning it in the many pages of threads on the subject I've read here, and a search turned up no references that I could find.

In 1835, a fire broke out in lower Manhattan which resulted in the destruction of a large portion of the Financial District. According to wiki -- and I am trying to find better sources and more corroboration, but it seems to be a matter of plain record:

Attempts to blow up buildings in its path (a technique later regarded as counterproductive) were thwarted by a lack of gunpowder in Manhattan. Firefighters coming to help from Philadelphia said they could see signs of the fire there.

About 2 a.m. Marines returned with gunpowder from the Brooklyn Navy Yard and blew up buildings in the fire's path...

So we have, a bit more than a hundred years previously, a massive disaster in the same part of Manhattan where deliberate demolition was employed. To me, it seems like a possible answer to those who question whether explosives could have been pre-implanted within the towers -- without myself feeling like I know enough to take a position on that, I'm curious what people make of this historic event and how it may or may not relate to the events of September 11, 2001.

Also notable about the Great Fire of 1835:

Insurance was not forthcoming because several insurance company headquarters burned, bankrupting those companies.

and

Since the fire occurred in the middle of an economic boom caused by the recent opening of the Erie Canal, the destroyed wooden buildings were quickly replaced by larger stone and brick ones that were less prone to widespread major fires. The fire also prompted construction of a new municipal water supply, now known as the Old Croton Aqueduct, and a reform and expansion of the fire service.

A suspicious mind might find the presence of a plan which (erroneously) presumed an ability to control the fire, combined with the usefulness of the fire for 'upgrading' the city in one horrific swipe suggestive of the possibility that the fire was set intentionally. And such a mind might make note that despite the 'counterproductive' remark, the idea of being prepared for sudden yet controlled demolition is not only plausible, but already part of the city's history...and that humans have a tendency to repeat failed behaviors with adapted methods, much more often than they truly abandon bad ideas and wholly replace them.

And of course, it was the last Great Fire in New York, there having been more than one, precisely as a result of the improvements made afterward. In other words, while destructive, the WTC fire did not cause the amount of utter devastation to the entire island of Manhattan the way previous massive burning catastrophes did. Is that because modern building materials and firefighting abilities are advanced enough to prevent a fire from burning out of control in a densely packed city? Or did they control it more tightly this time -- again, repeating a failed strategy with adapted tactics? I don't know, what do you think?

Note how the Insurance companies burned up too in the Manhattan fires as well...also meaning no payouts !

All Conspiracy Theories aside we do know that there has been a long history of Arson used to "flush" a business down the tubes. As well as good old Insurance Fraud.

This is one of the oldest crimes in history is the old "Fryolator" fire that just happens to burn a restaurant just enough to burn the interior and collect the insurance money and reopen a few months later under a new name.



This exactly what I suspected upon hearing that not one but both towers had collapsed all while televised to the masses on Tella-Vision !

Let us look at the numbers.
This is New York City BTW...

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

The insurance money flows involved in the destruction of the original six World Trade Center buildings were far greater. Silverstein Properties, the majority owner of WTC 7, also had the majority interest in the original World Trade Center complex. Silverstein hired Willis Group Holdings Ltd. to obtain enough coverage for the complex. Willis undertook "frenetic" negotiations to acquire insurance from 25 carriers. The agreements were only temporary contracts when control of the WTC changed hands on July 24. 9 After the attack, Silverstein Properties commenced litigation against its insurers, claiming it was entitled to twice the insurance policies' value because, according to a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, "the two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate 'occurrences' for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on $3.6 billion of policies." This was reported in the Bloomberg News less than one month after the attack. 10

Such a Deal !




911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by nh_ee


I'm surprised this isn't of more interest to the cause. Perhaps it is simply widely known already, and I stumbled upon it late. But it feels so potentially relevant to so many of the key questions....

reply to post by sepermeru


Tried same thing in San Francisco after great earthquake of 1906

Proved counter productive as the force of blast smashed windows and blew in doors allowing burning
embers to enter and kindle more fires

Explosives often cause fires too from the heat generated during the explosion

Trying similar thing at WTC 7 would have smashed windows for blocks around

Also is difference in knocking down a house or two and trying to demolish a 47 floor skyscraper

Engineers spend weeks studying floor plans to properly place charges, also in demolition entire interior is
stripped bare, Everything, walls, partitions, pipes, wireing is removed leaving only bare floors and support
columns Selected columns are then cut by torch to weaken the structure

reply to post by nh_ee


Silverstein didn't just take money and run

Rebuilt WTC 7 with new 52 story building

I guess the reason it has been the last great fire is that buildings have been built differently since then. Try to set brick on fire, or concrete. And it worked quite well, I can not recall any of the buildings catching fire except those who have been dosed in jet fuel and WTC 7.

Of course buildings can still catch fire, but the ammount of combustible material has been greatly reduced and is distribuited in a manner that it does not spread as easily from building to building.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by sepermeru

 

Tried same thing in San Francisco after great earthquake of 1906

Proved counter productive as the force of blast smashed windows and blew in doors allowing burning
embers to enter and kindle more fires

Explosives often cause fires too from the heat generated during the explosion

Trying similar thing at WTC 7 would have smashed windows for blocks around

Also is difference in knocking down a house or two and trying to demolish a 47 floor skyscraper

Engineers spend weeks studying floor plans to properly place charges, also in demolition entire interior is
stripped bare, Everything, walls, partitions, pipes, wireing is removed leaving only bare floors and support
columns Selected columns are then cut by torch to weaken the structure

why do they strip the pipes and walls and partitions and wiring?

Originally posted by Cassius666
I guess the reason it has been the last great fire is that buildings have been built differently since then. Try to set brick on fire, or concrete. And it worked quite well, I can not recall any of the buildings catching fire except those who have been dosed in jet fuel and WTC 7.

Of course buildings can still catch fire, but the ammount of combustible material has been greatly reduced and is distribuited in a manner that it does not spread as easily from building to building.

Yes, one of my points was that it allowed them to fireproof the city all at once by simply wiping out the dangerous structures in place, and that a suspicious mind might find the usefulness of this suggestive.

Primarily, though, I think about this: say you thought you could stop a fire by blowing up buildings with gunpowder-based weapons from the outside, as was done by the Marines in this Great Fire. You saw that doesn't work so well, but being a primate with a brain that likes to kid itself about how advanced it is, you stick with the general theme, and while you're doing all your fireproofing, you decide -- as engineers do tend to do, after all -- that a backup system might also be useful to build in to some of the bigger potential "splashers" -- a system which would allow them to fall into their own footprint rather than all over the tightly packed and extremely crucial Financial Distract (again). See, one of the key points of this historically factual event is that they weren't prepared for the controlled demolition they wanted to do.

Anyway, I don't know whether WTC 7 was "pulled", but it does surprise me that this easily discovered information isn't cited more often in discussions about the building, where detractors often seem to suggest that the very idea of using controlled demolition on a nearby building in the event of a massive fire would never be considered, when in fact it's been verifiably employed in some form in the same neighborhood not very long ago.

I'm still surprised this historical information is not of interest to the 9/11 independent research movement.

It seems to me that if I had a large fire in the financial sector, and I responded by using controlled demolition to contain that fire, I might then decide that in the future, I would be prepared to trigger controlled demolition in case of another massive fire in such a densely populated and enormously globally important small patch of the planet.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by sepermeru

 

Tried same thing in San Francisco after great earthquake of 1906

Proved counter productive as the force of blast smashed windows and blew in doors allowing burning
embers to enter and kindle more fires

Explosives often cause fires too from the heat generated during the explosion

Trying similar thing at WTC 7 would have smashed windows for blocks around

Also is difference in knocking down a house or two and trying to demolish a 47 floor skyscraper

Engineers spend weeks studying floor plans to properly place charges, also in demolition entire interior is
stripped bare, Everything, walls, partitions, pipes, wireing is removed leaving only bare floors and support
columns Selected columns are then cut by torch to weaken the structure

They only clear out the internal partitions and walls, so that there is less debris flying around:

www.youtube.com...

In an emergency, professional demoition experts can demolish a building within 48 hours.