Evil Milkman

** Note: I searched Tilted Paranoia and didn't find this specific discussion. **

I've been wanting to start a dialogue about World Trade Center 7 for a while now. I finally got the motivation to start one up here, and I hope it is filled with interesting observations and insight, not name-calling and flame throwing or anything.

So, to start...

World Trade Center 7

[I wanted to start this thread with concise notes and some websites to visit instead of an enormous write-up on what I think. This list is in no meant to be assumed comprehensive or scientifically accurate, just something to start off the thread with.]

I find it to be one of the most curious events of 9/11/01. These are some reasons why...

• WTC 7 was never hit by an aircraft, yet still collapsed after burning for only 7 hours.
  
• A few fires in the building were blamed for the collapse, yet fires alone have never destroyed a steel framed building so completely as to collapse it.
  
• Did Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder to the World Trade Center complex, admit that the WTC 7 was demolished deliberately, or "pulled"?

Links/Pictures:


- This is a view of the fires in the building sometime before the collapse.


- One comparison: The 1988 Interstate Bank Building fire that ingulfed many floors and burned more severely than the WTC, but didn't collapse.

Aerial view of the WTC 7 rubble.
- Notice that it is wholly destroyed. The rubble pile was said to be only 2 stories high and turned much to smaller pieces and dust. Could a collapse due to fire turn a building into a nice, neat pile of scrap?

Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment...
- This has been discussed before on Tilted Paranoia if I remember correctly, but I thought I'd list it here anyway. What the hell is up with this comment?

3 videos of the collapse
- I especially like the last video on the page. Astounding...

www.wtc7.net
- Intersting site, I pulled a lot of material from there.

So, what do you guys all think? I just can't seem to wrap my mind around the official story that fires made this building collapse the way it did. However, I don't pretend to know everything there is to know about this event, so I have a lot of studying and learning to do about this to try to make some more sense out of it. WTC 7 is a huge enigma to me.

Any extra comments, contributions, and insight are all certainly welcome.

Willravel

The FEMA report taken by investigators (the ONLY investigation of the 9/11 attacks in NY), basically said that they have no idea how this building collapsed (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html).

- all of the wreckage from the twin towers was shipped off, sold, and melted down before FEMA or any other investigators could test it. All they could do was make visual reports and form theories.
http://www.s-t.com/daily/09-02/09-10-02/a02wn021.htm
http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stor..._01180259.shtml

- a multitude of people were present in the wtc when the planes hit and saw and heard explosions going off, dozens of floors below the plane crash. (there was no combustible fuel in the building beyond the plane fuel):
seismograph readings from 34 km from ground zero http://www.american-buddha.com/sept.15.gif
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/people.html (from a people magazine article that was quickly erased); see Louie Cacchioli
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/ju...ignoredclue.htm bomb sniffing dogs removed from wtc days before attack.
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg interview with firefighters from ny. Warning, profanity.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/repor.../2004_00091.htm Here's the complete text of the New York Court's decision denying the press' right to access the complete oral histories/interviews taken of firefighters' and other workers about 9/11 as well as access to phone calls made to 911 on that day.

- video evidence shows the building was demolished using explosives, as it is impossible for the heat to be evenly distributed over the entire structure so that it completely melts and collapses all at the same time:
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. http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm
In the videos of the collapse (http://911review.org/Wiki/Sept11Videos.shtml) you can see the buildings exploded into fine dust, not collapsed pieces. Also, the buildings come down in about the same time as a free fall (about 15 seconds)- there was no friction of a collapse. This means that the building’s steel reinforcement was all melted to the point of giving at the exact same rate, despite the fact the fires were limited to the upper floors. Also, the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire is insufficient to melt steel. The temperatures measured of the core of the rubble, five days later, exceeded the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire.

- even the FEMA report admits that they are confused and baffled as to how building 7 of the WTC collapsed (as it is riddled with scientific and logistical errors):
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/7collapse.avi, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc-7_1_.gif both show that the building had basically no smoke coming from the building, and it also shows a collapse speed to rival the speeds of the WTC 1 and 2. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, and (as was admitted by FEMA) very little debris actually came in contact with WTC 7.
According to the FEMA report on Building 7, debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. This means the debris had to travel across WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.
Also according to the FEMA report, the backup mechanism (that should have shut off the fuel oil pumps when a breach occurred) failed to work, and the fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the tanks on the ground floor to the fifth floor where it ignited. The pumps emptied the tanks of all 12,000 gallons of fuel.
The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to ignite. The sprinkler malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire.
The conclusion from FEMA: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”
They would have investigated, but the wreckage was already sold as scrap and was being melted down.

Carno

Uhh... you guys list two things where the guy admits to intentionally destroying the building. What else is there to talk about?

It's not really a conspiracy if the guy responsible for it acknowledges that the building was destroyed on purpose.

Willravel

There were very little fires in building 7 before it collapsed. The building fell all at once, right back into it's footprint (impossible without professional demolition). Why did he have explosives in the building before 9/11? He admitted to "pulling the plug", in order for the collapse we all saw to happen, he would need the building to have been professionally demolished. This building was currently housing many companies as well as the mayors office. Why would he have explosives in a building that was currintly housing buisness without telling them?

They didn't install demolition charges on 9/11 obvsiously, so how do ytou explain that?

Stiltzkin

Yeah, but was there people inside? >___>

__________________
The most important thing in this world is love.

Carno

Yeah but both of your posts were asking how it collapsed, not why there were explosives in the first place.

I agree that it is extremely odd to have a building rigged up with explosives.
I don't know if there was people inside.. I hadn't heard anything about WTC building 7 until this thread.

samcol

Great point. I don't see why people argue back and forth about the melting point of steel etc. when we have an admission by Silverstein. I'm might be going out on a limb, but I think it would be impossible to plant explosives on 9/11 to demolish this. Biggest smoking gun ever.

Willravel

As any person walking down the street why they think the towers collapsed. They'll tell you that two mighty planes, piloted by islamic terrorists, crashed into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center. The fires burned hot and deep, causing the towers to come crashing down to the ground. Beyond that? Thay know nothing. They know the aftermath, Osama, Iraq, axis of evil, etc. This is intended to help those along who start from scratch as far as info on 9/11. The average person doesn't know about the "pull it" call by Larry Silverstein. This is not only for you, but also for them. People have questioned that quote before, so it needs to be posted and I need to be ready to back it up.

Now wait. You say that it was "extremly odd" that an operating and open office and governmental building was lined with demolition explosives, and you just leave it at that?! Doesn't that merrit some discussion? What if the White House is lined with explosives? What if the U.N. buildings, Big Ben, the Great Wall of China, and your apartment are lined with demolition explosives? You can't just say that and leave it. Comon.

samcol

Ya, I don't understand how people can even try to debate this when they don't know any of the facts. I run into this almost every debate about 9/11 that I get into. I bet you could show the the footage of the WTC 7 building collapsing to most Americans, and they wouldn't even be able to tell you when and where it happened.

Willravel

You're preaching to the choir, man. Most people know that some other buildings were effected. It's amazing how people can be bothered enough to get bumper stickers of the American flag without doing some research first. Heh.

Honestly, people take a lot of things lying down. Ask anyone on the street if what progress we've made in catching the phantom Osama Bin Laden in the last year and a half (shit, three years even) and they'll insist that we have tons of troops combing the hills and deserts. When you tell them that America has Afghani warlords looking for Osama, they'll call you a liar and unpatriotic. It almost makes me wonder if people should earn freedom, or just allow others to fight for it. I'd like to see at least some effort. Just a glimmer of hope. Threads like this are one such glimmer.

Evil Milkman

Interesting discussion so far.

I personally believe that the official story on all of the events of 9/11 are somewhat... how should I say this... fucked up.

As far as WTC 7 goes, it's one of the major catastrophes that make most people scratch their heads. That's why I like the topic so much.

The truth will eventually come out on all of this, albeit too late...

scout

What if this all is just a big insurance scam pulled off by Silverstein to get out of his lease? What if the government had nothing to do with it? What if Silverstein was in cahoots with Osama and other extremists, he wanted out of his lease and they wanted to do something spectacular? What if Silverstein is in cahoots with the government and Osama? What if it's all just a big conspiracy of Silverstein wanting out of his lease and knowing this our government recruited Osama and Osama is really a government agent {after all the biggest manhunt in history hasn't found him yet} and our government employed him to recruit a few extremist to give us an excuse to take out the extremist governments of the Taliban and Hussein?

Or what if it's all true what the government is telling us and it's just one of those "shit happens" deals?

I doubt any of us will ever know in our lifetime so I ain't gonna spend a lotta time worrying about it.

samcol

Wow, another recent example of a skyscraper not collapsing due to fire alone.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7610700

It hasn't fall down yet to my knowledge. The fires definetly look more intense than the WTC 1, 2 or 7 fires.

Update: It's still standing. This link has more pictures and the fire damage is very severe.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu...in.block.fire/

Carno

Yes I can, because I was only commenting on the subject of this thread. Evil Milkman is trying to claim there is a conspiracy, when Silverstein said he ordered the demolition of the building. I was merely pointing out that there is no conspiracy as to HOW the building collapsed, since Silverstein said he ordered it.

You are turning this into WHY there were explosives in the first place, and frankly, I don't really care much. I'll leave it to the paranoid people to worry their nights away about things like that.

Hanabal

The start of this thread showing how it must have been "pulled" is just to lead into the discussion as to why it was "pulled". this is tilted paranoia so if this is not the place to have dissussions with paranoid people, then where?

I think that the reasons for the building being laced with explosives, maybe weeks before must be explored. Or how about at least public acceptance that they had the building ready to go. So he admitted that he pulled it, he hasnt admitted that there were explosives in the days leading up to 11/9.

This is also I believe only the more obvious of the falacies of the 11/9 events. and a healthy discussion is good to get the facts straight.

__________________
I am Hanabal, Phear my elephants

Willravel

You don't care about the lives of 3000 innocent people being lost and lied about? You don't care the largest "terrorist" atack on the United States, something that has been compared to Pearl Harbor, is based entirely on lies? You don't care that this was allowed to happen? you don't care the the real guilty parties are probably never going to be heald responsible? You don't care that the incodent was used as a platform for segragation and hatred towards muslims and arabs?

That's kinda sad.

DJMala

Just an idea... what if the buildings <B>were</B> wired with explosives? The WTC had already been attacked once, so they knew that terrorists were interested in it. And the most obvious goal of attacking such large buildings would be to topple them. Maybe the explosives were planted as an emergency last resort, in the event that the buildings were fatally damaged. Bring them down cleanly, rather than let them topple and destroy the surrounding area as well.

Think about it, the buildings have been severely damaged, and collapse is imminent. Is it better just to let them topple, destroying surrounding buildings and killing potentially thousands more, or do you drop them straight down, sparing the surrounding area? The people trapped inside are just as dead either way, better not to endanger that many more people.

As for WTC 7, I assume that seven hours later the building was empty. Why risk the lives of more firefighters to save an empty building, when the rest of the complex has already been destroyed? Drop it in a controlled fashion, "pull it" so to speak, and be done with it.

You can appreciate why this would be a secret. People would be uneasy in a building they knew was wired with explosives. Keeping them secret would also minimize the security risk of having the explosives in the first place. Finally, explaining the decision to use them to the general public would be a PR nightmare. It's the least bad choice in an ugly situation, but making people understand that would be virtually impossible.

I'm not saying I even believe this, but I can definitely see how it could happen.

samcol

DJMala

There was absolutely no reason to demolish the building if your theory is true. From just looking at it, I cannot see any structural damage on the building. It just doesn't make sense. why pull that one only? There were other WTC buildings and non WTC buildings that had damage and were not destroyed.

I think the answer is too look back at the 800 million in insurance that Silverstein received and the fact that government agencies had offices up there.

"Mr. Silverstein might be able to do this, according to Moody's, because he is pursuing an "actual cash value" insurance claim for the property as well as a claim for rebuilding the property. Under the cash-value claim, he would be paid off in a lump payment."
http://homes.wsj.com/columnists_com/...10-bricks.html

I'm not sure how his insurance workes exactly. However, the way I understand that article is that he chose to get cash instead of letting the insurance company finance the new building.

Carno

Okay dude, whenever you want to stop being so over dramatic

What I meant was that I don't care to speculate on this forum about why the explosives were there.

Evil Milkman

Ok, but don't you think that Silverstein and the company that wired the building beforehand owes the American people an explanation? There were people working in that building that was pre-wired. Couldn't they at least explain to the family of the murdered why? Or, would that expose their illegal activities? And if they don't owe us an explanation, why?

As I already may have mentioned, I feel there's a lot more to this story that's being covered up than meets the eye.

Hanabal

surely there must be some law about wirring up building for demolition. ie no unliscenced people within 100meters. So therefore everyone working in the building would have unknowingly broken the law including the mayor.

the explosives required to cleanly bring down a building are not exactly small, or for another matter are they stable. so following on from the suggestion that after 94 they wired up the WTC incase of a repeat, then 7 years the explosives were sitting there, im pretty sure something would happen, misfiring or somesuch. If there were explosives, they were installed close to the date.

__________________
I am Hanabal, Phear my elephants

Evil Milkman

Exactly. The possibilities are haunting.

Evil Milkman

So, as far as I can tell, you seem to accept the fact that there is a decent possibility that there were explosives that were placed in WTC 7. If there were explosives that were set previous to 9/11 in the 7th tower, isn't it reasonable to wonder if there were explosives set in North and South towers?



Could it be that this man and others are mass murderers?

samcol

After the admitted demolition, I think it's very reasonable to think there were also explosives in 1 and 2. Another thing I've noticed about tower 7 is that it's never on the news. The clip of it falling was only played the first few days of 9/11 and that was it.

The thing I don't understand is why the feds don't just come clean with all the information about 9/11 that they haven't released. There's so many things that could be cleared up with emergency crew tapes, videos, documents etc.

They always claim national security, but there isn't much that they could disclose about 9/11 that we don't already know. I mean we hijacked planes flying into buildings. The only thing they could be withholding is information that shows criminal involement, or deliberate lack of response.

If 3000 people died under my watch, I think I'd be investigated and probably lose my job. Instead, they get record funding and more bureaucracy.

Willravel

Not to mention that we went on a massive manhunt after what is essentially an innocent man (innocent of 9/11 at least), Osama Bin Laden, as a direct result of this. This was a foundation of a war on Afghanistan, and they tried to use it as an excuse to attack Iraq. These are war crimes. We framed them for doing something, then attacked them. This isn't just about buildings being secretly wired with explosives.

MSD

Popular Mechanics did a report on this recently. I haven't examined their source images and videos, so I can't vouch for the authenticity of the report beyond the facts that it is logical, PM is a widely respected publication, and I have never seen them publish crap in the years that I've been a reader. I will, however, acknowledge that they have been known to have a moderately conservative strongly pro-military (it might be a stretch to say pro-war) bias in topic choices and presentation of information.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=5&c=y

samcol

Yes I have that issue. In my opinion it only attacks the weakest conspiracy theories like the plane under the pod, the missle into the pentagon etc. Basically the things that can't be proven easily one way or the other. It doesn't touch on many of the documented smoking guns. I wish they would of at least given it an honest shot.

They don't even mention Silverstein admitting to it collapsing? You'd think they would want to clear that up so the entire 9/11 conspiracy theorists can stop wondering. It's easy do defeat a "conspiracy theory" when you pick the weakest points and theories, and don't let the people you are debunking give a rebuttle. PM provides many links to sites that show the clips of him admitting to the demolistions, so it's unlikely that they couldn't have known about it in their investigations.

The whole reason this "conspiracy theory" got started was because 1. It looked like a demolition we've all seen before, and 2. Silverstein definetly admitted to it. They choose to ignore the Silverstein quotes? Sounds like a bogus attempt to debunk one of the biggest conspiracy theories there is.

Willravel

I used to read PM. It's a shame how downhill they've gone.

The following is my picking apart of the PM article, it is not me trying to correct SelfDestruct, as he just posted the link. Thanks for the link, btw.

I'll elaborate:

NIST researchers only had acces to the whole wrekage one week after FEMA had cleared out. How did more time allowed at the completly collapsed building allow the NIST researchers to discover that there was more physical damage to the building before it collapsed? All of the VIDEO and PHOTOGRAPH evidence found in hundreds of magazines and on television showed that there was almost no exterior damage to the building before it collapsed. There are photographs available that show almost all points of view to the buildings after the initial plane crashes.

What fire? What "severe damage"? Watch the video that I provided the link for above. There is basically no smoke coming from the building before the demolition. Also, the video clearly shows that the colapse was not "progressive" (as a progressive collapse would see one side cave in, then a bit later, the other would). The colapse is almost simultanious. They were right about one thing: the building fell in on itself. Something that is almost impossible during a fire.

Ouch this is a doosey. The blueprints are classified, but I can tell you that it would be difficult for this building to have stood durring violent wind storms or hurricanes if this claim was true. Do you think the mayor of NYC would have an office in a building that could topple over so easily?

The south face was undamaged, besides the windows that were broken. Were they load bearing windows?

Where there's smoke theres fire. The windows were blown out a great deal on the fifth floor, but there was almost no smoke. That's a load of crap that the fire could melt the supports so that the building would collapse all at once.

I hope they know who they're protecting by printing this.

Dyze

I saw how buildings get prepared for demolition. I cannot imagine that you can pull that off without someone in the offices noticing.
Maybe the shock wave or mini earthquake from the collapsing towers plus the fires gave the building the rest.

__________________
Knowing is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Evil Milkman

Fair enough, now all the government has to do is explain this to the public instead of saying that fire took this thing down.

balderdash111

Full disclosure: I don't buy into the conspiracy theory, but I choose not to argue them ad nauseum in this forum.

Just a thought: is it possible that when Silverstein said that he ok'd the fire department to "pull," he meant that he was approving them no longer fighting the fire?

You keep pointing to other buildings that suffer structural damage and didn't collapse, but presumably they were subject to ongoing efforts to fight the fire.

IF (and this is an IF), Silverstein pulled the efforts to fight the fire, couldn't the unhindered burning have contributed to the collapse?

Also note, unless I am mistaken, Silverstein didn't say WHEN he said to pull it, so this could have been hours earlier (even if it was minutes earlier, it actually makes even more sense that "pull it" meant "give up. let it fall")

Finally, I've never seen photos or footage of the south facade of building 7 after the towers collapsed. Does any exist? The photos from the north side show little damage, but obviously the south side could have much more.

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Hanabal

See thats the thing, there are a lot of very reasonable explanations possible. but when the govt chooses to go with an entirely unlikely one, or at least porely explained, thats when the theories come out.

__________________
I am Hanabal, Phear my elephants

Dyze

I read this interview this morning that the firefighters in Madrid withdrew because of falling debris. At some point, there is just nothing you could safe. So when it will collapse anyway, it is too late and you would have to demolish it. Maybe that was the decision in NY too.

__________________
Knowing is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Evil Milkman

Maybe they did have to demolish it.

But then they would have had to have it wired already. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

NoSoup

Well, that would be true, but the "Official" Story is that it collapsed due to damage from debris, not from controlled demolition.

I know it has been mentioned a few times here in Paranoia, but for those people out there interested in seeing a few of the... inconsistancies that raise questions about 9/11 but don't really feel like doing much research, I would recommend watching 9/11 - In Plain Sight. I am not a big fan of the format, but it addresses many of the concerns you see in this forum regarding the 9/11 attacks.

__________________
I have an aura of reliability and good judgement.

Just in case you were wondering...

Evil Milkman

I own 'In Plane Site'. Most of it is intriguing...

Hanabal

i just watched the videos from the original links, and while I believed you all, I was still thinking maybe they didnt lie. after seeing the videos however, there is no way that fall came the debris, which means they lied.

I just want to know, apart from willravel, how many totally disbeileve what the US govt has told you about 11/9. and i have to give props to willravel, he showed me so much info about the events surrounding that day that its beyond sickening but i feel better for knowing it. Unfortunately i cant do anything about it as i am not a US citizen, but then what good does that do anyway.

When i first heard in august 01 that someone bought the world trade centre, i was like "wow, how much, 3 billion omg" It sound nerdy but they were my favourite buildings, (im an engineer) so elegant and beautiful. when i was woken up to the fact that they were gone i was pretty pissed. but I quickly remembered that someone just spent 3 billion on them, my first thoughts were he just got screwed, then i thought that maybe just maybe its so soon after he got them that something shady happenned. and ever since evidence has been contradicting the "story".

__________________
I am Hanabal, Phear my elephants

Willravel

Well, Hanabal, I'm glad that I can convince a few people. You have an advantage over me in that you aren't a US citizen. I'm surrounded by people who are ready to jump on me and call me anti-American at the drop of a hint at what I know. I've told a few of my friends who really respect me, and while I think they believe me I know that they try their best not to think about it. It's fear. I live in a country that is lorded over by fear. It sounds like the cliche coming from the left, but it's absolutely true. People are afraid of the government and afraid of phantom terrorist threats. I'm not afraid of terrorists at all. Many, many legitimate terrorist groups have specifically said that they hate the American government and they pity the American public. I am much more likely to be killed by a local police officer or die because of cancer than I am of being killed by a terrorist. My fear is for my daughter. While she'll learn all she needs to know about patriotic responsibility and civil liberties from me, she'll be going to an overcrowded school teaching a very small view of history, science, math, and literature from people who are paid far below the poverty level. If is wasen't for her social growth, I'd home school my daughter myself. This is the country I live in. Fear and ignorance run rampant.

You, on the other hand, are surrounded by people who are starting (or have been) seeing America as an empire that serves only it's own interests and has control of the oil spigot of the world. You see that the American bases in Afghanistan are situated right on the oil pipe, which could not be protected by the Taliban. You know America is willing to hurt people in the name of "democracy" and "freedom". You have no loyalty to the American government and are free to say things like "Geaorge W. Bush could very well start World War 3". You can tell your friends about the terrible lie of 9/11 without having to worry about the Patriot act spying on your e-mails. You have a better chance than I do. Good luck.

samcol

I basically agree with everything willravel just stated above this post. In the country where questioning governemnt was considered patriotic, now it's regarded as anti-American.

Researching 9/11 has been my hobby for about a year now. No, It didn't start with Michale Moore either. It started with watching some Alex Jones police states tapes and listening to his radio show. The claims he was making where so absurd that they couldn't possible be true. Yet, he challenges you to go read the documents and study it for yourself. Governments count on you not knowing, not reading, not keeping them in check. If you try to debate the average person about 9/11 they don't even know the WTC tower 7 existed?

I once wondered why there were no smart criminals. Now I know the best criminals are extremely smart. They run the world.

MSD

Just to clarify, are you suggesting part of that this might be the biggest insurance fraud in history?

And to willravel, I hadn't seen those videos before, but it's going to take a lotof hard evidence to convince me that WTC7 was anyhting but a controlled demolition. Whether the building was pre-wired or quickly wired up (easier if it's structurally damamged) to destroy some sort of evidence is a question I'll have to think about, it was definietly intentional. Now that I think about it, my father and my uncle both worked for the sam IT company, and may have done some of the networking in that building (dad called it "next to the twin towers" once.) Since my father died a few years ago, I'd have to check with my uncle about whether it was building 7 that they worked on.