Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
It's too bad that no one has been able to convince anyone of any conspiracy.

If that were the case, then AE911T wouldn't continue to be growing. 1000 AE's 2 months ago and now approaching 1200.

1,200 out of how many?

In actual fact, if 1,200 go around saying that WTC 7 could not have collapsed without explosives I am happy knowing that there are 1,200 self-selected "architects and engineers" I would never hire.

Millions of truthers in nearly every major country in the world. Nah, nobody is being convinced of a conspiracy.

Yawn. Look how far it's gotten you. You still cannot bring any evidence to the table to support your claims.

And just as I thought, you couldn't refute the evidence that I asked you to, so I guess we're done here.

Sorry, it's too bad you missed that there's no evidence presented for me to refute. And neither have you backed up any of your claims. You might want to reconsider supporting ae911truth.org.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
It's too bad that no one has been able to convince anyone of any conspiracy.

If that were the case, then AE911T wouldn't continue to be growing. 1000 AE's 2 months ago and now approaching 1200. Millions of truthers in nearly every major country in the world. Nah, nobody is being convinced of a conspiracy.

And just as I thought, you couldn't refute the evidence that I asked you to, so I guess we're done here.

So, AE911T has approaching 1200 members. That is if you count the landscape engineers, the electrical engineers and the lads that make the tea etc.

Here is a breakdown of the membership of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 120,000 + strong, who are partners with NIST in their 9/11 findings :-

www.asce.org...

It's long been known that Silverstein claimed he asked for Building 7 to be taken down. While it's interesting for the claim that he was asking the insurance company for permission, it's absolutely unimaginable that the fire department would ever comply. Fire Departments are not demolition experts and no city department would ever consider doing such a thing. It's not their expertise, responsibility and no high rise building on fire has ever a posed risk left standing. A crash course in demolition would only add to the risks f the situation. Beyond that, such a demolition takes weeks of planning and bringing explosives into a burning building and pursuing such an endeavor is just impossible. Not sure why that wold be floated at this time.

Larry is such a bitch. For pulling that #.

reply to post by jthomas


Is there a modern steel high-rise building that has suffered a global collapse due to fire damage? Because if there is I haven't been able to find one.
So instead of dodging the question, how 'bout YOU provide some evidence for a change?
Answer Bonez' question!

Evidence says that steel-structured highrises don't globally collapse from fire. Evidence says that CD companies use explosives to bring down steel-structured highrises because fire won't work. And you can't refute any of that, can you?

Can you refute those assertions or not?
I have seen many films of controlled demolitions before - perhaps you can explain why building 7 looks so identical to one.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
It's too bad that no one has been able to convince anyone of any conspiracy.

If that were the case, then AE911T wouldn't continue to be growing. 1000 AE's 2 months ago and now approaching 1200.

1,200 out of how many?

IIRC, the 1200 number is NOW contrived up of architectural and engineering "professionals". Which includes office clerks and secretaries, etc.

The ACTUAL number of folks with any quals is closer to 400-500.

Yet just another example of how the TM lies to bolster the validity of their claims.

What I find most curious, however, is that even with several hundred qualified people, is that NONE of them have ever submitted a paper that in any way questions any aspect of the NIST report.

IOW, it's just an argument from incredulity, on a massive scale. None give a reasin why they disagree with it. They just expect us to believe them.

Pathetic.....

Originally posted by Smack

Evidence says that steel-structured highrises don't globally collapse from fire. Evidence says that CD companies use explosives to bring down steel-structured highrises because fire won't work. And you can't refute any of that, can you?

Can you refute those assertions or not?
I have seen many films of controlled demolitions before - perhaps you can explain why building 7 looks so identical to one.

You've got the claim all wrong.

There is no precedence of such a narrowly defined building falling as a result of thermal expansion of a long span floor beam, true.

What this is evidence of, is that the reaction to steel framed buildings is well understood, and that fire protection engineers have done an excellent job over the years learning from the collapse of smaller structures, and applying the lessons learned from them to the construction of larger buildings.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
From someone that was on the ground on 911 :

I'm a construction worker and worked with Task Force One the first week of the incident. . I worked as a surveyor using a transit to monitor any buildings in danger of collapse. There are tall buildings closer to ground zero than building 7 that are functional to this day. When I saw building 7 it was intact. That was the only building construction workers were not allowed to aid in the clean-up and recovery. I didn't think much of it then, but I know better now.

Very interesting, you learn something new about 9/11 all the time.
Building 7 is the weak link in the 9/11 story/fabrication/cover-up.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

There is no precedence of such a narrowly defined building falling as a result of thermal expansion of a long span floor beam, true.

I think you are referring to wtc 1 and 2 here, but I'm not certain. If you are then that was not the topic being discussed. We are talking about building 7 specifically.

Originally posted by Smack

I think you are referring to wtc 1 and 2 here, but I'm not certain. If you are then that was not the topic being discussed. We are talking about building 7 specifically.

No.

That's 7.

Now address what I wrote.

In your opinion, is the rarity of any structure collapsing due to fire evidence that no steel structure can be compromised by fire....

Or is it evidence that fire protection engineering is well understood by those that have taken the lessons learned from previous failures and applied them to subsequent structures..

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
How many of those buildings had top secret files that needed to be protected? Explosives may have already been in the buildings from the beginning.

...and you have evidence that this has ever been done before as well, I take it? Or is this another unsubstantiated claim?

CD companies use explosives, not fire because fire can't do this:

So, it CD companies now are an integral part of new high rise construction then? So they can pre-wire the buildings to come down in a controlled manner?

You do, of course, have proof that a CD company has done this before, right?

According to Paul Laffoley, who worked on the design of the South Tower, both towers were designed to be brought down by controlled demolition in a few hours by being pre-wired. But it was kept a secret for commercial reasons. Hear his explosive testimony on the Mike Hagan's Radio Orbit Show in 2007 at:

kentroversypapers.blogspot.com...

(Scroll down to download the MP3 file).

Reply to Joey Canoli:

In your opinion, is the rarity of any structure collapsing due to fire evidence that no steel structure can be compromised by fire....

A building may be compromised, even severely, and not suffer a complete collapse.
Again, please provide an example where this has occurred. I can show you multiple examples of skyscrapers fully involved in flame that did not collapse.

Or is it evidence that fire protection engineering is well understood by those that have taken the lessons learned from previous failures and applied them to subsequent structures..

I am certain that this is the reality. We learn from our mistakes.
The building was over-engineered and still it fell.
Forgive me for being thick-headed but it seems like you're making my point.

I really don't know how you can reconcile the gross contradictions from NIST, et. al. and the eye witness testimony of bombs going off, along with the admissions from Larry Silverstein and come away with a different conclusion. It was a Controlled Demo. Game Over!

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Smack]

reply to post by gavron



The PDF you linked in HERE

That article says nothing, coming from EXPLOSION EXPERTS, it offers nothing concret other than the same old main stream story. Why would you not look at the MOTVIES FOR DESTRYOING THE BUILDINGS?

Wouldn't pushing your global agenda constitute MOTIVE? How about trying to cause a NEW PEARL HARBOR?

MOTIVE is everything in criminal activity!

Also during part 3, page 9 of that pdf, funny how the authors say there was no seismic spike associated with the collapse of WTC 7 when indeed there was! There was seismic activity for every event that day!

From Columbia University WTC Seismic Activity

The signal last for 18 seconds, how long did it take for the building to fall?

So I checked the source you linked....

Another note, the person who wrote this PDF is not a structural engineer, or demolitions expert!!

In fact he isn't anything close to engineer! HE IS WRITER! Operations manager, why would anyone take this as anything other than opinion!

As noted here on his bio-page Brent Blanchard

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Brent L. Blanchard currently serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services Inc., Rancocas Woods, New Jersey. The firm performs vibration consulting, structural survey and photographic work for contractors throughout the United States and abroad.

In addition, Mr. Blanchard is a senior writer for implosionworld.com, a website that publishes news and information related to the explosive demolition industry. His team's work is also regularly published in various periodicals such as The Journal of Explosives Engineering (ISEE-USA), Explosives Engineering (IEE-UK), Demolition Magazine, Demolition & Recycling International, Constructioneer and Construction News.

So his writings and his photography make him an expert to say that WTC 7 was no way brought down by Controlled Demolitions, sounds like he got paid to write this in favor of the CD field!

Another note, when commiting a crime its easy for those complicit to evalutate themselve and say they had no part:

Controlled Demolitiions Cleans up a Crimes scene?

Convenient I'd say!

Wow, I'd sure say great pdf! It proves nothing!

[edit on 24-4-2010 by theability]

[edit on 24-4-2010 by theability]

Originally posted by Smack
I have seen many films of controlled demolitions before - perhaps you can explain why building 7 looks so identical to one.

here is an example of a building being brought down with no explosives:

www.youtube.com...


edit: oops, multiple buildings.


[edit on 24-4-2010 by gavron]

Originally posted by theability
funny how the authors say there was no seismic spike associated with the collapse of WTC 7 when indeed there was! There was seismic activity for every event that day!

Ummm, assertion #4, paragraph 4...does say they recorded the seismic event from the collapses that day. What you are not mentioning is that it did not detect "spikes" from explosions preceding the collapse (to weaken the steel beams).

Please don't quote mine to just support your theory.

Originally posted by Smack
Reply to Joey Canoli:

In your opinion, is the rarity of any structure collapsing due to fire evidence that no steel structure can be compromised by fire....

A building may be compromised, even severely, and not suffer a complete collapse.

Right there is where your understanding goes awry.

You agree that portions may collapse, right?

Now, what is the determining factor that decides whether or not the entire structure falls naturally?

reply to post by gavron


I am just doing my part to make sure the sources are credible, which that pdf offers no scientific evidence or citations to support the findings he concludes about the WTC 7 Collapse, not one reference.

Would you point that out if I offered similiar data? I'd hope so.

reply to post by JacKatMtn

... Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

www.foxnews.com

This man is a [color=gold]lair, he’s the only one out of hundred, of very credible eyewitness who “saw” and “heard” explosions, not only did they hear explosions, they were recorded as well. You can view the evidences down below. Many of the credible eyewitnesses where NYC Firemen, NYC police officers, and first responders.

I find Fox News article appalling to say the least. Fox News has proved it self for many years to do damaged control for our government. Fox News is as credible as the [color=gold]National Enquire.

Funny, how Fox News witness never spoke publicly before about what he heard or saw. I didn’t see his testimony in the 911 Commission Report. In my opinion the man is simply a lair, where is his proof? Where is his creditability? How come some many credible professionals who were at WTC7 tell a very different story than he?

[color=gold]911 WTC7 collapse collapses Ground zero WTC 7 firefighters

www.youtube.com...

[color=gold]Explosion Witnesses

•Here are just a few of the witnesses and recordings that NIST says DO NOT exist.
You be the judge.
Here’s NIST’s Statement from their website “Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. …”

[color=gold]NFPA 921-18.1 Chapter 18 Explosions

WHY DOES NIST REFUSE TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVES?

To this day NIST refuses to test for the possibility of explosives. “Considering” is NOT testing. Private parties have tested, and [color=gold]found evidence of explosives.

• These are just a few of the over 100 witness accounts of explosions.
Now, let’s be clear. Explosion sounds can be explained away. But, only after a thorough investigation. When there is this much witness testimony, evidence, and explosive use by terrorists on this very same complex, there is no excuse for refusing to test for explosive residue

[color=gold]Active Thermitic Material - Not only a smoking gun, but a loaded gun

[color=gold]Key Witness to WTC 7 Explosions Dead at 53

Barry Jennings’ now dead at 53 details his eyewitness account while trapped inside WTC7 on 9/11 in a 2007 interview. Jennings told reporters on the day of 9/11, as well as Loose Change cameras in 2007, that he heard repeated explosions inside the building before either Tower 1 or Tower 2 collapsed and testified that he was “stepping over dead bodies” while exiting the “blown-out” lobby to WTC7.

firefightersfor911truth.org...





[edit on 24-4-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by gavron


While those videos are quite interesting, I am left somewhat confused as to why you believe they support your implied point. Surely you are not suggesting that this has ever naturally occurred with any building.
These are still controlled, planned demolitions are they not?
Are you implying that this method was used for building 7 or WTC 1,2?

Very interesting indeed!

reply to post by Joey Canoli

You agree that portions may collapse, right?

Yes, perhaps.

Now, what is the determining factor that decides whether or not the entire structure falls naturally?

Well, there would be many determining factors I assume.
The question is whether or not this is a natural occurrence. I don't believe that it is, and as has been repeatedly pointed out, there is no example of a comparable building that demonstrates this kind of global collapse occurring naturally.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Smack]