posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 06:33 PM
I'm sure many of you have heard about the mystery of building 7 on 9/11. For those of you who have not, I'll explain as concisely as I can.
After the major attacks on 9/11, we all probably remember that additional buildings went down in the WTC complex in addition to building 1 and 2.
These others were explained to have fallen due to damage sustained as a result of the two towers collapsing. However, if you research the events
behind building 7 and its collapse specifically, this explanation is obviously false.
Like the towers, bdg 7 was a steel framed structure and had not received any blows or explosions. However, some small fires had started on a couple
floors, no doubt because of some fuel or burning debris that flew in from the towers. Despite the fact of a lack of damage and strong structure,
building 7 collapsed. Again, although there were those fires on a couple floors, that obviously would not cause the whole thing to come down.
In the face of speculation and questioning as to why this happened, officials involved with clean-up/investigation/explaining events to the public
simply said that, "oh, well it came down because we 'pulled' it." (term used by demolition industry describing the controlled demolition of a
building) Proof of this explanation coming out is in a DVD documentary about 9/11 produced by CNN, or PBS (one or the other). In it, Silverstein,
the then lease owner of the whole complex describes the fall of building 7 because many people were wondering why it happened. In this DVD, he is
interviewed as saying that the building was on fire, and he and others weren't sure that they could contain it, and that there had already been such
awful loss of life, that the smartest thing to do would be to just pull it. And so that's what they did. They brought it down with demolitions. So
there is no doubt that this was the official explanation of how and why the building went down, at least for awhile.
(To see this interview and video of the collapse, you can watch: 911 - In Plane Site. Also I believe you can view the footage at www.infowars.com)
And with this explanation inlies the BIG problem of why this is obviously NOT the truth of why the building collapsed.
Problem 1 - There were fires on a few floors. There is absolute evidence of this because you can clearly see it burning as it was captured on video.
Only a few of the upper floors have problems. On the video, it shows the floors that were burning, right before it collapses, and then shows the
actual collapse. So first of all, why would you demolish yet another building in ADDITION to the others that fell down just because of a small
Problem 2 - A bigger problem here. Any person with half a brain would know that you don't go running into buildings setting up explosives and wiring
them all up when it's on FIRE! That would be suicide. If parts of the building are burning, you can't set bombs in there without them going off
while you're inside.
Problem 3 - And here's the real kicker. This problem alone, shows that Silverstein and the others did not speak the truth. To execute a controlled
demolition, it takes WEEKS to set up, if not MONTHS. The building must be assessed for blueprints, floorplans, weakpoints, structural materials.
Types of explosives must then be determined and then obtained and then set up THROUGHOUT the building strategically. They all must be properly wired
together so they all go off in whatever pattern the demolitioner desires. And so IF 9/11 was "a surprise attack" to everyone, including officials,
obviously, they would not be planning to take down the building before that actual day. Therefore, that means that, since they decided at some point
in the day to pull it AFTER the attacks and collapses, we're talking about that in a matter of hours, they would have abrubtly decided to march in
there, set it all up with explosives, and take it down in a clean implosion. And that's what the video shows. A clean implosion. We're not
talking about throwing some plastiques throught the ground level front door and running for it before it blows up all over the place. This was a
calculated, clean take down.
So, what does this all imply??? That either A) Silverstein was only lying and they really didn't pull it, and it was just the fire on the upper
couple floors that brought the building down. B) A team actually went in their on moments notice and set it all up with impossible speeds and planning
amidst the FIRE in a matter of a few hours. Or C) (and most likely) The fact that it went down so clean, and it went down WITHOUT being damaged by a
plane or any large projectiles, indicates that the demolitions had ALREADY been place AHEAD of time BEFORE 9/11. In fact, it had been planned WEEKS
ahead of time just like every other building has to! And what does THAT imply? That some people (gov officials and silverstein) KNEW that 9/11 was
going to happen and that they would be ready to take building 7 down after the attacks! And THAT leads to circumstantial evidence that the towers may
have been rigged as well! There is also testimony and HARD evidence that the towers were rigged in addition to this circumstantial evidence we can
derive from building 7.
After some people knew that this official explanation of building 7 couldn't be accurate, it prompted more questions as to what happened.
Authorities have since refused to discuss the issue. Obviously, Silverstein blundered big in the interview by offering this explanation.
For those of you who aren't sure whether a team REALLY needs tons of time to successfully take down a building, I have taken the liberty to do some
research and verify that it DOES take WEEKS for myself. After all, I wanted to remove all doubts about this mystery so I could be sure about it
before I go telling everyone about this. I emailed several demolition experts that I found on different sites on the net. In the email, I asked if
it were possilbe to conduct a demolition in the span of a few hours and listed certain specific circumstances that mirrored the circumstances of
buildings 7 and its collapse. I never mentioned building 7 in the email, but funny enough, I get a reply back, and he must of known EXACTLY what I
was trying to get at. Here's my email and the reply I got:
> As far as I've ever heard, controlled demolitions take a long time and a
> of planning to set up and execute. Is this true, and in all situations?
> Besides planning the types of explosives to use, and where to place them,
> there any other variables that make controlled demolition a slow process?
> Like getting a liscence to do it in a certain area, or permission from the
> people around the area?
> I was also wondering if it were possible AT ALL, to conduct a controlled
> demolition in a few hours. For example, if some experts abruptly and
> spontaneously decided to bring down a building one day, with no prior
> or planning, could they do it whatsoever in a few hours? What if they:
> -Had the blueprints of the building handy to look at
> -Didn't have to worry too much about damaging buildings around them
> -The area was already cleared of people
> -But the collapse was a perfect implosion
> Is this possible? Also, do demolition squads/companies (such as you) have
> stocks of different kinds of explosives, or must they be ordered or
> on a per job basis? How quickly can they be obtained or used?
> I would really really appreciate it if you could help me out on this
> information, as I'm doing some research on this subject. Thank you.
Not knowing the footprint and area of your building, it is hard to give a
precise answer. But lets use WTC Bldg. #7 at Ground Zero as an example.
No, there is no way a steel building over 40 stories with that large of a
footprint could be loaded and prepared in hours (maybe a concrete building,
but it probably would not collapse completely).
A 40-story steel tower-type structure, however, could be loaded and shot in
that timeframe. It's a question of pre-burning and preparation. If you
don't prepare the columns properly, the blast will simply shoot backwards
(path of least resistance) and put a small black mark, or at best a dent, in
the column. I have seen inexperienced blasters prove this hypothesis
We'll be touching on this more in our follow-up to 9/11, set to be posted in
the next couple of weeks. Check our 9/11 page next month, and you may be
able to apply some principles we explain to your specific building.
As you can see, this further confirms the shady goings on for building 7, and therefore, for the whole complex on 9/11 and the attacks as a whole on
9/11. I didn't want to rely just on some guy from a video and his opinions. But let me tell, now that I have verified this(and I've emailed many
other sources just an hour or so ago, so I'm hoping for even more insight) what I suspected, is now something that I believe and it is very
disturbing. The fact that the governments explanation was deceitful, lends suspicion to the fact that they have been involved. And who exactly
isn't for sure, but I certainly don't mean the WHOLE government was in on this. But certain figures. Those in the CIA and FBI. Possibly the State
Department or what have you. That is debatable, but the facts above, however are not.
I just wanted to really share with you all the whole controversy, and also what I was able to find out. I think this should be considered by
everyone. Please, I welcome any thoughts, comments, or questions. Thanks.