911 WTC collapse

what if it WAS a controlled demolition?

what if the engineers were so smart when they built the building, they also built-in demolition devices so that in case the building were ever in danger of destroying most of Manhattan by toppling over, they could be controlled by demolition.

here's a theory against:

i watched them come down, there were no simultaneous or consecutive explosions down the length of the building as would be necessary for the building to be controlled in demolition. if you don't destroy the support structure of a building during demolition, it will fall to the side because the support underneath will still be intact. this case, not being a controlled demo, but much like one because much of the lower support structure was weakened by heat, and then by weight, but also, you have to take into account the properties of steel, when it begins to bend, it is much easier to continue bending it, but it is difficult to get started. i know this as i am a fabricator of steel parts. the upper portion of the tower fell onto the lower portion because the supports got weak from heat. the lower verticle steel beams began to bend inward, allowing themselves to be bent all the way down.

Controlled Demolition in the sense of how demotionalists perform the task?
No, I dont believe so.

As far as another possibility of some form of energy weapon(earth quake on a molecular level)
Yes, theres a very good possibility of that.

A building that large could not collapse so precisely within its footprint using conventional demolition techniques.

Whats interesting is the same clean up crew for Waco, Oklahma City Bombing, WTC boming in 93 and WTC911 were the same company, CDI
Controlled Demolition Inc

Quote:
There was no legitimate reason not to dismantle the rubble pile carefully, documenting the position of each piece of steel and moving it to a warehouse for further study.
No one was thought buried in the pile, since, unlike the Twin Towers, Building 7 had been evacuated hours before the collapse.
The pile was so well confined to the building's footprint that the adjacent streets could have been cleared without disturbing it.

Yet, despite the paramount importance of the remains, they were hauled away and melted down as quickly as possible. The steel was sold to scrap metals vendors and most was soon on ships bound for China and India. Some of the smaller pieces and a few token large pieces of steel marked 'save' were allowed to be inspected at Fresh Kills landfill by FEMA's BPAT volunteers. www.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by fledgling666
what if it WAS a controlled demolition?

what if the engineers were so smart when they built the building, they also built-in demolition devices so that in case the building were ever in danger of destroying most of Manhattan by toppling over, they could be controlled by demolition.

Every now and then, someone floats this idea. But, if you stop and think about it for a second, you will quickly see just how impractical it is.

1. Explosives are inherently unstable. They tend to get more unstable over time. Nothing is more dangerous than old explosives. Old dynamite �sweats� nitroglycerin.
   
   
2. How did they protect the explosives from fire?
   
   
3. How come no one said when the building was built: �hey, this is a pretty dumb idea?�
   
   
4. There were a number of renovation/retrofit projects in the building. How come no one ever said �Hey, what are those explosives doing bolted to the column over there?�
   
   

Originally posted by project_pisces

As far as another possibility of some form of energy weapon(earth quake on a molecular level)
Yes, theres a very good possibility of that.

Or then again, maybe it was magic. It wasn�t the Islamic extremists after all, it was the Wiccan extremists!�

Originally posted by HowardRoark

In the meantime, I�ll listen to the engineers who see no problems with the speed of the collapse. The only thing closed here is your mind.

I will just start drinking diet coke again, since it is safe. Searle scientists say it is so, I will listen to them, about aspartame, not 16 years of prior studies.

I will start vaccinating again because the "experts," say it is "nutritious," yes mercury benefits the developing brain.

And why not use fluoride, since US scientists who work for industry, say it is good for my teeth. Never mind that it is being phased out in Europe. I have an open mind! I will let the fox guard the chicken coop, I must, I hear and obey!

Skip, are you a P.E?

Well I haven't much to say, other than you beleive it or you don't.

CNN: WTC Collapse Looked Like Implosion Video Link

Oh but WE KNOW IT WASN'T. The only problem with that statement is The evidence

When The Explosives Were Placed: WTC South Tower Upper Floors Closed on 9/8 & 9/9

On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ...

"Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower.

CBS News Channel Eyewitness Describes 'Secondary Explosions' in the WTC Video Link

In the first clip, the CBS reporter refers to a secondary exploson in the South Tower before its collapse. The reporter's exact words were "some kind of secondary follow-up explosion."

In the second clip, the CBS reporter describes explosions near the top of the North Tower as it collapses

New York Firefighters Discuss Bombs in WTC Towers Video Link

In this clip you will hear a discussion between New York Firefighters from September 11 where they describe the WTC and the fact that it looked like detonators were planted in the towers. There is a little profanity in this clip

Evidence for Explosives in the Twin Towers

Initially the explosives theory suffered from the problem that the mainstream media did not report that anyone heard explosions just prior to the WTC collapse. But in the last year reports have surfaced, and there is now even video evidence available to anyone which shows that explosions actually did occur within the Twin Towers prior to their collapse.

Slowly but surly more and more information is coming out to the public eye that Americans and the world has been lied to.

Major WTC Insurance Company Questions Building 7 Collapse As Potential Fraud
(PRWEB) May 2, 2005 -- Allianz Groupone of the world’s largest insurers published a shareholder proposal on April 20th faulting management for ignoring signs of insurance fraud on 9/11/2001. Allianz carried a significant portion of the insurance coverage on the WTC, and stands to pay a corresponding portion of the $3.5 billion payout currently being litigated in New York. In his proposal, shareholder John Leonard, a California native and a publisher of books on 9/11, pointed to reports that building WTC 7 apparently collapsed by demolition, and for no plausible reason related to the 9/11 attacks. Management replied that it relied on official US government reports which made no mention of such evidence.

Two German-American writers, Jim Hoffman (www.wtc7.net) and Eric Hufschmid, have contibuted greatly to the theory of the dynamiting of the Twin Towers and Building WTC-7. Hufschmid’s work was translated and published in German (www.painfulquestions.de). They claim that never in history has the structure of a steel building ever been destroyed by fire, and that on the contrary, the evidence points to a controlled demolition. I could find no evidence to gainsay their thesis anywhere.

WTC-7, as is well-known, was never struck by airplanes, and photographs of it show only insignificant fires www.globalresearch.ca.myforums.net... . Nevertheless, the 47-story building at WTC 7 suddenly collapsed at around 17:28 on 9/11/2001.

This fact was not even mentioned in the 585 page report of the official 9/11 commission.
www.9-11commission.gov...

Link

[edit on 6/5/2005 by Sauron]

As time passes, more people question the validity of the governments official story regarding 9/11. They still haven't answered the question of why WTC 7 Collapsed. The government just says that fire may have caused the collapse. Yet we have proof that the firefighters "pulled" WTC 7

Definition of pulled = To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

dictionary.reference.com...

www.prisonplanet.com...

Are we to assume that there were already explosives in the building in case it had to be demolished?? Or did they place the explosives during 9/11 in a matter of hours so they could "pull" the building?? (On one of the scariest days in american history.) I don't think so.

Slowly, but surely more and more people are taking off their blindfolds and revealing the truth. The lies and deceits will eventually stop, but the question is.... how many more lives will die in vein in this so called "world of terror" ??

CPYKOmega, perhaps you missed the thread where the definition of the term pull was discussed as it is used by fire fighters. I'm not going to dig it up again, so . . .

Like many occupations, fire fighters have a distinct and definite language that they use to communicate with each other. Since they are involved in a deadly occupation it is imperative that they all share the same definition for commonly used terms.

To the NYFD, the term pull is just a shorthand for pulling back and letting a fire burn.


This is a fairly common term among fire fighters. Here are some typical examples of its use:

Source

H-1 threatened by fire. Firefighters pull back. Crewman on helicopter recon dropped off.

Source

He was only able to direct water on the fire for a few seconds before the rest of his fire party (with no SCBA) called for him to pull back.

Source

During an initial attack yesterday, I heard on the radio from the first
engine on scene that they were getting spots behind them and that they
had to pull back until additional units arrived on scene to help protect
them. Pull back is good. Doing nothing is bad.

Source

The fire, still growing in intensity, moved rapidly up the hollow, and the CL gave the order, by radio, to pull back.

Some slightly different terminology used here:
Source

Approximately 8 minutes had elapsed and the District Major said "let's ease off this thing for a minute," (pull back and regroup)

Source

After an initial attack on the fire inside the building, firefighters had to pull back and assume defensive positions around the structure. Interior floor collapses kept crews from re-entering the building.

Source

Because the scene was confused and smoke so thick, Dupee ordered firefighters to pull back before someone got hurt Sunday at a South Central warehouse fire.

Source

It is critical that the incident commander, as part of the fire ground strategy, ask the basic question: should they even be inside of the building? Is the potential benefit worth the risk to the fire fighters? Is progress being made on the fire, or is it time to pull back, protect the fire fighters and let the building go? If the owner didn't feel it was necessary to properly protect the property from fire, then why should fire fighters be placed in danger to protect it?

Source

Once firefighters realized that there were propane and LPG tanks involved in the derailment, and they were on fire, a decision was made to pull back. Firefighters abandoned hose lines in the streets when they realized the seriousness of the situation.

And on, and on, and on. . . .

Howard if you even checked out my links... firefighters didn't say that they pulled it. The owner of the WTC's said that they pulled it. And every example you showed me said "pull back" NOT pull it. You are just trying to twist what I said. And yes "Pull back" is not the same as "Pull It"


You are out of your element.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by CPYKOmega]

ok.. WTC 7 went down.. so why is it the other buildings that werent owned by the good man Silverstien not destroyed.. like the one wit the big ass gaping hole in it after the towers fell.. and the verizon building which was what.. 40 ft from the towers....

its a law of physics If Silverstien Owns a property its has to be blown up.. even if there was no servere fire in it... WTC7, considering nobody heard about 7 being on fire untill it collapsed.

If you are wondering, Our good man Silverstein owns the Sears down in Chicago, I wonder what plans he got for that???

And Howard, I am still waiting for an answer on another post.
Goto the bottom and please answer.


[edit on 5/8/2005 by ThichHeaded]

Silk, anyone who knows anything about the "DARK" activities that happened in Northen Ireland in the 70s and 80s know that a large number of the bombs accredited to IRA in the 80,s were placed by operatives of military intelligence working as terrorists..To gain confidence the had to kill..sadly.

But the information passed on by the agents saved countless more lives than they took...The bombing of the Deal military base in Kent was a perfect example.




[edit on 8-5-2005 by andy1972]

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
...The owner of the WTC's said that they pulled it....

[edit on 5-8-2005 by CPYKOmega]

Absolutely - and he certainly didn't mean "pull back" or "pull out"

Howard you are wrong as usual listen to the mp3 of Silverstein say '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 we watched the building collapse."


THE CONTROLLED COLLAPSE OF WTC 7
Real player Video

Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.
In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire 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 we watched the building collapse."
Pull it mp3

Originally posted by Curio

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
...The owner of the WTC's said that they pulled it....

Absolutely - and he certainly didn't mean "pull back" or "pull out"

I don't understand if you are agreeing with my post or being sarcastic with a quick one liner. Please explain in greater detail what you are talking about and I will be happy to respond.

So, the fire department made the decision to pull, in other words to pull out or pull back from the fire.

And as a consequence the buildng collapsed due to the structural damage caused by the WTC collapse and the subsequent fires.

and they watched this happen.

Big deal.


See my post above. You can not deny that the term "pull" when used by firefighters in this context means to pull back. There is no "smoking gun" here.

[edit on 11-5-2005 by HowardRoark]

Howard that is not the way it was said, Silverstein said and I quote
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire 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 we watched the building collapse."
Pull it mp3

listen to the interview you can hear it, in his own words PULL IT!, not pull out or pull back.


Looking at the upper right-hand corner of the building we see a rapid series of small explosions travelling upward just as the building itself begins to fall. The size, placement and timing of these "puffs" is very consistent with squibs from cutting charges of the type used in professional controlled demolitions, and in fact nothing but small explosive charges could create such an appearance. watch the clip



[edit on 11/5/2005 by Sauron]

Have you ever even bothered to actually listen to that statement???

This is what he says:


"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire 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.' And they made that decision to pull and instead we watched the building collapse."

Note that this is not the same as what you posted.

All of the transcripts bandied about on the conspiracy sites make two critical changes.

1) they add the word "it" after the first time he says "pull." If you listen to the statement, he does not say "pull it" he just say "pull."

2) Secondly, and most importantly, they leave the word "instead" out of the last sentence. With this word in there, it is obvious that he is using the word pull to indicate that they are not going to fight the fire.

Listen to it again.


[edit on 11-5-2005 by HowardRoark]

Wrong he says pull-it as in one word first, then after that he just says pull. I guess we will have to agree to disagree, and see what other people here have to say after they hear the clip.
But you have to agree that he does not I repeat does not say pull out or pull back



[edit on 11/5/2005 by Sauron]