It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WTC#7 Logically Leads us to WTC 1&2

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:41 PM
The following is an interesting read for those with an open mind to what happened to WTC building #7, very few people seem to know about WTC7 40+ floor building that also fell on 9/11 despite no plane ever hitting it, and it fell like it was demolished on purpose.

© 2006 – 2007 by G. Edward Griffin.

Many people have asked my opinion of the possibility that, on 9/11, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition. My view is that there is a great deal of evidence pointing in that direction, but I have been reluctant to dwell on it, because it can get us sidetracked from other issues about which there can be no question – such as the fact that CFR controllers within the Bush Administration had ample foreknowledge of the attacks but chose to allow them. It's not that they bungled the defense of America, but that they chose to do so – just as the Roosevelt Administration chose to allow the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to justify American involvement in World War II. The facts in support of this scenario are so clear and numerous, it is virtually a closed case to anyone who will take the time to examine them. One doesn't need to go any further to understand that the so-called War on Terrorism is a ploy to justify American military intervention in the Middle East and expansion of political power at home, so why must we dwell on secondary issues where there can be plausible denial and reasonable dissagreement?

That is still my attitude, but with the passage of time and the accumulation of additional evidence, the case for controlled demolition on 9/11 has become so powerful as to justify a very serious second look. Even though there is still some wiggle room for plausible denial, the accumulating evidence is like slowly advancing jaws in a clamp, gradually squeezing that space out of exisence.

There is no such thing as absolute proof. There is only evidence. Proof may be defined as sufficient evidence to convince the observer that a particular hypothesis is true. The same evidence that is sufficient to convince one person may be insufficient for another. The case may be proved to the first but not to the second who still needs more evidence. It is in the spirit of this reality that I offer the following evidence.

A video documentary released in 2006 sharply tipped the scales toward what most people would consider to be proof of an inside job. It is called 911 Revisited, and it can be viewed in its entirety at: I find it difficult to believe that anyone can consider all the facts presented in this program and still cling to the view that these buildings were destroyed as a result of fire.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of The Twin Towers and Building 7, said on a PBS TV documentary entitled America Rebuilds, broadcast in September 2002, that he and others made a decision to "pull" Building 7 because of fires on two of its floors. He didn't say who the others were, but it was assumed to be the New York Fire Department. His exact words were:

I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to 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.

This was the genesis of a thousand articles and blogs suggesting that Silverstein had deliberately destroyed his own buildings for the purpose of collecting insurance on them which, reportedly, was about two times their actual value. It was claimed that, in the demolition industry, the term "pull" was commonly understood to mean "pull down" or demolish, although an Internet/Google search could not verify that. I personally sent inquiries to thirteen people whose names and e-mnail addresses appeared on demolition web sites asking them if this was true. Curiously, only one person replied, and it was with a single word: "no." That seemed very strange. I didn't know what the response would be but I expected at least there would be one. It was as though everyone in the industry was intimidated by the topic and didn't want to have their name associated with the debate.

Two years later, after his statement had come under scrutiny and the full implications began to emerge, Silverstein claimed that, when he said “pull” he was only talking about pulling the firefighters out of the building!

It is tempting to just laugh at that statement thinking that no one could take it seriously. However, a review of the Internet shows that there are, indeed, many commentators who are content to accept his revised explanation. So, let us analyze.

1. Never before in history have steel buildings collapsed from fire, even though many of them had sustained massive confligrations that raged for days and consumed everything combustible within them. Their steel structures always remained standing.

2. No airplanes struck Building 7.

3. There were two relatively small fires in Building 7 but, in view of the history of steel structures withstanding blazing infernos, there was no reason to think that these modest blazes were a threat to the structural integrity of the building.

4. All occupants of the building had been evacuated and, at no time was there any reason to think that the fires would cause additional loss of life.

5. The two fires in Building 7 were not far from each other at one end of the structure. If, somehow, they were responsible for the building's collapse, it would be logical to see the burning end collapse while the other remained standing or, at the very least, to see the burning end collapse first. However, contrary to all logic, the entire building came down simultaneously, including the end with no fire whatsoever. It fell at free-fall speed (as can be seen on the video capture of the event), which means there was no resistance to upper floors crashing onto lower floors. Furthermore, it collapsed neatly into its own footprint, exactly as done with a controlled demolition.

6. At the time Silverstein says the decision was made to "pull" the firefighters from the building, there were none in there to be "pulled".

In the March, 2005, issue of Popular Mechanics, Dr. Shyam Sunder of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, which investigated the collapse of Building 7, is quoted as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC7." The FEMA report on the building's collapse, dated May 2002, says: "No manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY." And, on November 29, 2001, the New York Times reported: "By 11:30 a.m., [six hours before Silverstein said he decided to "pull" firefighters from Building 7] the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chef Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

In February of 2007, a New Jersey Emergency Team worker went public with the story of his personal experience at Ground Zero on 9/11. He contacted Dylan Avery, the producer of the documentary, Loose Change, which challenges the official version of 9/11 and claims that it was a false-flag operation directed by covert agencies of the government. The video has been broadcast in numerous countries and viewed by millions.

The team worker said: "There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7. You could see them through the windows ... and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled." He said that the workers were warned over bullhorns that Building 7 was about to be pulled. This was followed by a twenty-second countdown over their radio units preceding the collapse.

In the same testimony, the Ground Zero worker went on to explain his experiences at the Twin Towers, adjacent to Building 7. He had been called to the site after the first impact but before the collapse of the towers, so he was there when it happened. At one point, he had to take shelter under a bus as the debris rained down around him. In graphic detail, he described how he and many others heard multiple explosions within the buildings prior to their collapse. He said: "There were explosions. There were flashes. There was molten metal running down the I-beams of the basement levels like lava flows. I've never seen anything like it. Yes, planes hit the building. Anybody who says otherwise is a moron. But the explosions – the rapid, symmetrical, sequential explosions – they happened."

He went on to explain how he and his co-workers were in the basement of one of the towers helping injured victims when he saw "One of the huge steel and concrete support pillars with an eight-foot section blown out of the center of it" and there were other support columns in the same condition. (Reference: "Ground Zero EMT: We were told Bldg 7 was to be "pulled".

When you watch the video of Silverstein's statement about Building 7, listen carefully to the inflection of his voice as he ties together the phrase: “They made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.” There can be no doubt that the two events are tied together just as the words are: the decision to pull and the collapse of the building. Notice, also, that there is no indication of surprise when he mentions the collapse. If he had not anticipated the collapse, one would expect him to say something like: "It's a good thing we made the decision to get those firefighters out of there because, to our surprise, the building collapsed just a short time afterward." But he did not say anything like that. He simply said, as in one continuous thought: "They made the decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

In view of all these facts, to believe that Silverstein was talking about pulling firefighters from Building 7 is not the sign of a logical mind. Here is the video: Silverstein on PBS

If you still think that Silverstein was referring to firefighters, there is no point in reading any further. You will not consider what follows to be of significance. However, if your judgment plus the manner in which Building 7 collapsed lead you to believe that it was brought down by controlled demolition, then what follows should be of great interest.

It takes many weeks of planning and preparation by a team of highly trained experts to bring down a structure the size of Building 7. The first step is to locate a qualified organization. Other than military demolition units, their number is small, and it is not likely that the New York Fire Department is one of them. After negotiating a contract, the engineers have to obtain master blueprints and identify the main structural components. They must analyze the building materials, the thickness of load-bearing beams, the weight that rests upon them, the space between them, where the access points are to place charges, how intense the charges must be, in what timing sequence they must be ignited. A computerized firing system must be programmed to deliver the precisely timed firing impulses. Then the charges must be obtained from a storage depot in a remote location away from urban areas. Technicians must gain access to the beams and, in many cases, hack their way through walls to get to them. Safety procedures are followed to insure that all technicians are clear of the area before implosion is triggered.

This is just a sampling of what must be done before a building like Number 7 can be pulled, and it normally takes many weeks or even months to do it. Yet, the elapsed time between Mr. Silverstein's alleged decision to “pull” the building and the final collapse was 45 minutes!

What more do we need to know? For many of us, the evidence is so overwhelming that we consider it to be nothing less than proof. The claim that the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job is absurd. But the story advanced by the government and Larry Silverstein is even more so. That the building was brought down by controlled demolition now is obvious to almost everyone, but what generally has been overlooked is the rapid execution of the demolition. That reality leads to the inescapable conclusion that explosives had to have been placed inside Building 7 long before 9/11. And, if they were planted in Building 7, we must take very seriously the possibility – no, the probability – that they also were placed in the Twin Towers. That means 9/11 was an inside job.

I can't say it any clearer or more logically than how Mr. Griffin explains it.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 06:45 PM
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

I wasn't going to read any of it once I saw Griffin wrote it. He is NOT trained or educated in Engineering OR CD.

To show how much he does NOT know...

This is just a sampling of what must be done before a building like Number 7 can be pulled, and it normally takes many weeks or even months to do it. Yet, the elapsed time between Mr. Silverstein's alleged decision to “pull” the building and the final collapse was 45 minutes!

Please show me where this 45 minutes was. And please show me where Silverstien made the decision to pull.

This is typical garbage spewed from the mouths of liars. Blue Jay... I am not calling you the liar. The source that wrote this garbage is the liar.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:33 PM
reply to post by CaptainObvious

well yes, Silverstien did make the decision to pull it. He said it in a news interview, that you can most likey find at youtube. And yes, its ridiculous; how in the world is he just gona say "pull it" and the building comes down?? It takes lots of time of preparation with C4's and what not, i don't no much about that but i know that it takes a lot more than from the time the planes hit the WTC's to the time building 7 collapsed. Its amazing how much evidence there is, everywhere you look, if you look hard enough you can see the truth.

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by luis9343

Show me the quote. Make sure you read it first. Sorry, but you are wrong.

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 10:19 PM

I wasn't going to read any of it once I saw Griffin wrote it. He is NOT trained or educated in Engineering OR CD.

Basic physics does not require that you hold any degree to understand them. If you can find anyone who can show the math to support the fema, nist or 911 commission report, please post. so far it hasn't been done, and basic physics tells us that the building would have fallen at an angle UNLESS THERE WERE OUTSIDE FORCES AT WORK.

this isn't advanced math, this is high school #.

posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 08:33 PM

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I wasn't going to read any of it once I saw Griffin wrote it. He is NOT trained or educated in Engineering OR CD.

Although you are correct, this is not David Ray Griffin. This is G. Edward Griffin. But I do know a Griffin who is trained and educated in engineering that agrees with these two more than the official story. That would be me.

[edit on 9/5/2007 by Griff]

posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:41 PM
Interesting read.

I recently made a post conserning if the buildings were wired.

Please comment on it.

posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:48 PM
Im discovering theres plenty of people who thought WTC 7 looked like a controlled demolition.This guy from the news sure thought so.

Video link here

posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Black_Fox
Im discovering theres plenty of people who thought WTC 7 looked like a controlled demolition.This guy from the news sure thought so.

Video link here

Yeah he thought so, but he doesn't know for sure. Its not like he was admitting saying "yes it happened are being brainwashed this is all a script, I've been paid to say it was terrorist attack and not a demolition or govt sponsored attack!!!!!"-news anchor

new topics

top topics


log in