Wasn't this thread closed?
Should have stayed that way. All this has been gone over already, many times.
The demo people have absolutely no proof to back their claims. In another thread like this, there's a link to a demolition company that talks about
the 9/11 collapses. It'll be nice for you people to actually learn something from experts on the subject and not go by some moron with webspace.
I'll try to find that link, some of you really really need to look and learn.
There's alot of ignorance being spread throughout this thread, I'll just pick out the best (meaning worse) statements.
WALTER: The building is brought down by explosives. Clearly if you look at Larry Silverstein in a movie he claims he told the fire department of the
city of New York to pull the building.
1. The fire department would not have been responsible for demolishing the building. So why would Larry ask them too?
2. Has it even been proven yet that someone told someone to pull the building? Does anyone have audio of that?
Also, did they say it as in "do it" or as it "it needs to be done"? Because of the way the towers fell (causing a lot of debris to overspread the
building 7 area), and because of all the damage to it's southward face as well as the fires, 7 was going to have to be demolished anyway.
3. You don't demolish a building like that, like that. Implosions are meant to do just that.....implode. Not collapse.
More on building 7:
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene.
Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there.
[Firehouse Magazine, 8/02] According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13.
[Firehouse Magazine, 4/02] Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily
damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02] Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the
Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on
several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02] The building will collapse hours later.
The area around WTC Building 7 is evacuated at this time (4:30). [Kansas City Star, 3/28/04] New York fire department chief officers, who have
surveyed the building, have determined it is in danger of collapsing. Several senior firefighters have described this decision-making process.
According to fire chief Daniel Nigro, “The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely
damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's
integrity was in serious doubt.” [Fire Engineering, 9/02]
Here's where the demo people get their stuff from.
Building 7 of the WTC complex, a 47-story tower, collapses (5:20). No one is killed. [MSNBC, 9/22/01; CNN, 9/12/01; Washington Post, 9/12/01;
Associated Press, 8/19/02 (B)] Many questions will arise over the cause of this collapse in the coming weeks and months. Building 7, which was not hit
by an airplane, is the first modern, steel-reinforced high-rise to collapse because of fire. [Chicago Tribune, 11/29/01; Stanford Report, 12/3/01; New
York Times, 3/2/02] Some later suggest that the diesel fuel stored in several tanks on the premises may have contributed to the building's collapse.
The building contained a 6,000-gallon tank between its first and second floors and another four tanks, holding as much as 36,000 gallons, below ground
level. There were also three smaller tanks on higher floors. [Chicago Tribune, 11/29/01; New York Times, 3/2/02; New York Observer, 3/25/02; FEMA
study, 5/1/02] However, the cause of the collapse is uncertain. A 2002 government report concludes: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how
they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy,
the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” [FEMA study, 5/1/02] Some reports indicate that the building may have been
deliberately destroyed. Shortly after the collapse, CBS news anchor Dan Rather comments that the collapse is “reminiscent of ... when a building was
deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.” [CBS News, 9/11/01] In a PBS documentary broadcast in 2002, the World Trade
Center's leaseholder Larry Silverstein talks about a phone call from the Fire Department commander he had on 9/11. Silverstein recalls saying to the
commander about the building: “You know, 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.” [PBS, 9/10/02] It is unclear what Silverstein meant by the phrase “decision to
pull.”
So he did NOT say he "pulled" the building. The decision was made.
1. Planning a implosion takes time. Lots of it.
2. It was impossible to even get to building 7, let alone brings pounds upon pounds of explosives to the site.
3. 1+2 = Not possible for it to have been demolished from the time the decision was made until the collapse.
4. When has a 47 story tall building ever withstood fires for that long as well as significant damge and not collapsed?
All that and more here:
www.cooperativeresearch.org...
Moving on:
so how can that bring down two structured buildings that were designed specifically to have airplanes flown into them at high speed AND survive with
minimal structural damage
I know this was addressed. But just to reiterate, the buildings were tested (*not designed*) for much smaller airplanes crashing into them. And those
test did not include damage done as a result of the fires from the crash.
(again, link in another thread that I can't find right now...will edit when found)
Minimal structural damage? Are you kidding?
The structural damage was more responsible for the collapse than the fires. Take a knife and slice it through a house/tower of cards and see what
happens.
The notion that fire destroyed WTC 1 & 2 in the manner they were destroyed i absolutely ridiculous.
The idea that WTC 7 was destroyed by fire is even more stupid,
No fire had ever caused a steel structure to collapse before or after 9/11.
You think the missile theories are better?
Or the demolition theory?
First, in order for a successful demolition, the explosives HAVE to be PERFECT. Or it will not work at all. You're telling me huge passenger jets
slamming into the building somehow missed these explosives?
Second and more importantly, explosives wouldn't even be placed that high! In order to bring down a building like the towers you would go from the
ground up in a series of explosions. You're telling me the millions of people watching live on television somehow missed those explosions? You're
telling me that even though thousands of cameras saw the collapse start from where the planes went it, it really started from the bottom?
Third, you're telling me that tons of explosives were placed in the WTC and went unnoticed?? Do you realize how many walls you would have to knock
out to do all that? No one noticed that?
In the pictures after 1 and 2 get hit, 7 has no fires in it or anything, but then it has 3 small fires in the middle of the building then it goes down
like a controlled demolition
What are you talking about? On that site linked above (and another link I linked in another thread) you will see that fires started on the top floors.
There aren't any pics that I know of showing the fires on the top floors, but everyone in the area who was able to see, saw them. This is the best
pic I could find, showing clear burn marks on the upper levels (note: this is not the heavily damaged southside)
Most of the pictures you see show later on with the fires on the bottom floors:
Oh there's so much more I could go over, but I don't even know why I waste my time. You all aren't going to change your minds anyway.
Look, no one is saying the government is perfect or the government doesn't cover up stuff. But when the government is covering up stuff....you know
it. With 9/11, I'm sure there's alot of stuff that hasn't been revealed yet, but some huge government coverup conspiricy? Highly unlikely.
You all make think only the US government is out to kill you but I'm sorry to say, there really are terrorists out there whether you want to believe
that or not.
Did they recieve help from here in the US? Sure. Most of it from unknowing people. Before getting on the planes some of the hijackers failed the metal
detectors a few times but were still let through. Learning to fly and not land at the flight schools should have been reported.
Want to blame the government? Go ahead. We shouldn't have had such a nonchalont, "nah, they'd never do that" attitude. But trying to create
conspiricies where there is none? Come on...
* 
