Proof that wtc 7 was brought down by controlled demolition! must see

reply to post by OmegaPoint



It was hit by 110 story building

Does that count?

How did building 7 even catch on fire?

reply to post by DjSharperimage


Buring debris from WTC 1

South side was slaashed open for at least floors - debris ripped open the
building face allowing burning debris from collapsing WTC 1 to enter

reply to post by scubagravy


ok thanks for the advice man. and ya its my first thread ever

Danny Jowenko, Explosives Controlled Demolitions Expert

www.jowenko.com...

If you check this thread:
hat did Larry Silverstein mean by "Pull It"?
We're already 11 pages into this one.

Debunkers will tell you all manners of ridiculous things but at this point it is painfully obvious that "pull it" meant demolish the building.
Even if you continue discussion here which I expect, please read this thread there is alot of information there.



[edit on 25-9-2009 by ashamedamerican]

reply to post by ashamedamerican


Does the chief of FDNY matterr? It was his decision to abandon WTC 7

I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source

I have understood (and have seen nothing to the contrary) since the afternoon of 9/11 itself the WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition because it was so badly damaged by both fire and the shock waves of the fall of the towers. It was deemed too unsafe and to facilate safer search and rescue, it was removed.

It was announced by the MSM on TV the afternoon of 9/11 itself...I remember it. So what is the mystery?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ashamedamerican

 

Does the chief of FDNY matterr? It was his decision to abandon WTC 7

Then why does Silverstein say it was his suggestion? Especially when Nigro specificallly states it was his decision without consulting the owner? You are just hurting your cause when you site Nigro.

Originally posted by grover
It was announced by the MSM on TV the afternoon of 9/11 itself...I remember it. So what is the mystery?

And why lie about it later on after "conspiracy theories" start to develope? I would say 7 billion would shut a few up?

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Nutter]

Originally posted by grover
It was announced by the MSM on TV the afternoon of 9/11 itself...I remember it. So what is the mystery?

Because if they admitted it was a CD then they would have had to admit that the building was pre-wired and that would lead to awkward questions about the twin towers being pre-wired.

reply to post by Nutter


Apparently have problems in basic comprehension

It was the FDNY who called Silverstein informing him building was being
abandoned

Silverstein didnt call - he was called saying Mr Silverstein WTC 7 is
too dangerous and fires too extensive, we are abandoning operations
and evacuating area.

Now what is Silverstein going to say - blow up the building its ok with me
or I concur with your decision get everyone out?

No wonder people think you are nutz....

WTC #7 has always been an exciting subject for me to research on. I was watching an hbo documentaion few years ago, abd 9/11. Silverstien, in court, collected his property insurance i belive...the thing is WTC #7 was one piece of property, they court allowed him..2 pieces of prperty! his total check, if we can call it that, came out to something like $2 trillon..i might be wrong on that. SO how did he get comepnstated for land that didnt exist on his leased property thier? fascinating, isnt it.
Obviously, the planes did no hot the WTC, nor did 'jer fuel' seem to spray al over it, casuing a fire chain reaction. Watching it fall in slow motion, via loose change...its interesting to see, the very top of the buidling, the penthouse* stars to collpase in. thn another one does, few seconds pause then it fall top down. O
Of course, the ONLY way that could have been achived, would have been with a detonation device. so i do wonder, what silverstien, jewish, knew, knows and why he wanted to collect*

i just read aboe, the WTC #7 was salshed open by debris..i never heard of that? i coudnt find anything on youtube that says so..not saying your wrong, by the way. regardless then, asuming the buildnig was crippled via the twin towers debris..it leads me to presume, they totaly used soft recycled materail when building WTC #7m whcihi doubt, or the entire building was literally built with very poor architecture, engineering, and the lowest bidder for the cotnracts* youg et what yuo pay for* if its cheap, its garbage, plain and simple.

reply to post by ziggy1706


WTC 7 was not built as you claim with sub standard materials .

Problem was in design - it was built over CON EDISON power station
Original plans had envisioned 25 story building. WTC 7 was 47 (new
WTC 7 is 52, but slighty smaller). To shoehorn building into original
area required some tricky engineering. Long span cantilever trusses
were needed to support larger structure. The support columns were
under heavy stress - each column needed to support 2000 sq ft of floor

As fires spread the heat caused expansion in beams pushed columns out of position resulting in progressivwe collapse

The original 7 World Trade Center was 47 stories tall, clad in red exterior masonry, and occupied a trapezoidal footprint. An elevated walkway connected the building to the World Trade Center plaza. The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints.

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[3] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (55,700 m²).[4] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building covering a larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built.[5]

The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[3] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[4]

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the building.[3] The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.[3] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[27][28]

en.wikipedia.org...:Wtc7_collapse_progression.png

reply to post by ziggy1706


Wont found anything on YOUTUBE except garbage by conspiracy types

Here is video by Steve Spak

www.911myths.com...

Shows extent of fires at WTC 7 - damage is hard to view because of
smoke on south face, but can see some indications on west face as
photograoher pans camera

Also here is link to picture of damge and how collapse initiated

upload.wikimedia.org...

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Nutter

 

Apparently have problems in basic comprehension

Let's go over this again for the dumbest among us.

1. Silverstein says he was the one who suggested the firemen get out. Or "pull it" if you will.

2. Nigro claims he made that decision without consulting the owner at all.

Now who has basic problems with comprehension? BTW, if you are going to slight people, you might want to learn basic English and learn how to complete a sentence first.

No wonder people think you are nutz....

And who is the fool.....the one who is foolish or the one who argues with the fool?

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Nutter]

reply to post by Nutter


Once again - Silverstein was called by FDNY to say WTC 7 is being abandoned. It was not his decision - that is the fire ground commanders
and the decision had already been made.

Silverstein was merely agreeing with decision already made - not that its
matter as fire ground commander has total authorithy on the scene

Nigro was simply informing Silverstein what was being done

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Nutter

 

Once again - Silverstein was called by FDNY to say WTC 7 is being abandoned. It was not his decision - that is the fire ground commanders
and the decision had already been made.

Silverstein was merely agreeing with decision already made - not that its
matter as fire ground commander has total authorithy on the scene

Nigro was simply informing Silverstein what was being done

Once again, you are not following along logically.

Here is Silverstein's quote.

"I remember getting a call from the 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 then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

Bolded by me.

Now, to most folks who have good reading comprehension, Silverstein is saying that HE suggested to pull the firemen out. AND THEN they made that decision to pull.

Do you get it now?

Nowhere does Silverstein say he got a call stating that they were pulling the men out. Silverstein says it was HIS suggestion to do it.

Get it now?

[edit on 27-9-2009 by Nutter]

Originally posted by thedman
Nigro was simply informing Silverstein what was being done

Also. Nigro specifically states he didn't inform Silverstein of anything. So, where are you getting this from? Your ass?

reply to post by Nutter


Here is statement by Chief Nigro

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

Operative sentence

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone.

Nigro made the decision - Silverstein was informed and went along with it
Was nothing else could do - as said fire officers in command have complete authority to do what they think is right

Seem to like to twist meanings....