Post by Steve Gardner on Nov 26, 2007 1:24:47 GMT
From THE ALL-SEEING i.
Note: Original article contains embedded videos.
According to a Zogby International poll dated May 24th 2006, as many as 43% of Americans were ‘not aware of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse’ at 5:21pm on September 11th 2001. With NIST preparing to release its final report into the collapse, the recent ‘mainstreaming’ of 9/11 conspiracy theories couldn’t have come at a more interesting time.
“We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors… but truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7.” - Dr S Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead WTC investigator
The collapse of the 47 storey WTC7 is often the epiphany for 9/11 conspiracy virgins; unlike WTC1 and 2, WTC7 was not hit by an aircraft yet it collapsed symmetrically, at near free fall speed and largely into its own footprint.
Some believe that, despite the damage caused to WTC7 by the collapse of WTC1, and despite the resulting fires, which went untended throughout the day, the only way to account for such a collapse is by controlled demolition. This would point to foreknowledge of the attacks and thus a conspiracy, since the 47 storey WTC7 would have taken several weeks to prepare for a demolition.
The building’s collapse certainly did have the appearance of a controlled demolition.
(see original article for video)
Demolitions expert Danny Jowenko agreed.
(see original article for video)
Two videos even appear to capture the sound of explosions – possibly the same blast event - coming from the direction of WTC7.
(see original article for video)
The second video also shows the area around the building being cleared in anticipation of a collapse.
(see original article for video)
In an interview with Bonnie Faulkner, of KPFA’s Guns and Butter, Indira Singh, a volunteer Emergency Medical Technician on 9/11, goes further, suggesting that the area was cleared in anticipation of a controlled collapse (emphasis added).
This ties in with recently uncovered CNN footage, in which anchor Aaron Brown announces at 4:10pm that building 7 ‘is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing.’
(see original article for video)
By 4:57pm, the BBC were sure that…
Yet a short while later, and much to the BBC’s chagrin, correspondent Jane Standley is filmed in front of the still standing WTC7. The loss of her feed just minutes before the building’s actual collapse served to fuel conspiracists’ claims.
(see original article for video)
But nothing has done more to arouse suspicion than comments made in September 2002 by the WTC complex owner, Larry Silverstein. During an interview for a PBS documentary entitled America Rebuilds, he said (emphasis added):
(see original article for video)
Conspiracy theorists contend that Silverstein’s use of the term ‘pull it’ is an admission that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled manner. Three years later, Siverstein’s spokesman, Dara McQuillan, offered a different interpretation. The statement, which is published on the US Department of State’s web site, reads:
This explanation has proven to be almost as controversial as Silverstein’s original comment. Many people are simply not prepared to accept that Silverstein would have used the term ‘pull it’ rather then ‘pull them’ to refer to the withdrawal of a group of firefighters, arguing instead that ‘pull it’ is a demolitions industry term for a controlled demolition. Silverstein’s defenders counter with the claim that the term ‘pull it’ is not used within the demolitions industry to refer to the demolition of a building by way of explosives, but rather by way of cables. However, this is not strictly true. The terms ‘pull’ or ‘pulling’ are frequently used to describe a part of the ‘implosion’ process whereby cutter charges (or a combination of cutter charges and cables) have been set in a particular way to ensure that the perimeter walls of a building are ‘pulled’ in. This is especially common in situations where the building being brought down is in close proximity to neighbouring buildings.
As Stacy Loizeaux, daughter of Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) founder, Mark Loizeaux, explained during an interview with Nova:
But, even if we accept that the term is not a demolitions industry term for the controlled demolition of a building by way of explosives, there is another problem with Silverstein’s explanation.
According to NIST NCSTAR1-8, The Emergency Response Operations, page 111 (emphasis added)…
Thus, if the building was cleared by 2:00pm; and if the Chief Officer subsequently discussed ‘the FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires’ with his command officer; then the fire department commander could not have informed Silverstein ‘that [the FDNY] were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire’ until after the building had been evacuated.
In other words, there were no firefighters to withdraw at the time Silverstein spoke with the fire department commander.
That aside, there has been a great deal of speculation about the nature of the damage caused to WTC7 by the collapse of WTC1. Whilst early eyewitness accounts were vague about the extent of the damage, one firefighter, Captain Chris Boyle, did report specifically that…
Until recently, it was thought that Boyle was referring to this trauma at the south west corner.
But a recent ‘find’ appears to show the damage was more extensive.
(see original article for video)
However, the extent to which this new material will support NIST’s preliminary ‘Working Collapse Hypothesis’ for WTC7 is unclear. The vertical gash is towards the west end of the south face. But as ‘Winston Smith’ points out in his paper, entitled ‘Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST’s Estimations’…
NIST then appears to use a rather exaggerated damage assessment to support its theory.
Perhaps the Achilles heel of NIST’s hypothesis will ultimately prove to be the seismic data. I’ll leave you with the words of researcher and Internet discussion board contributor, LaBTop, who explains in his detailed analysis that (original emphasis):
Note: Original article contains embedded videos.
According to a Zogby International poll dated May 24th 2006, as many as 43% of Americans were ‘not aware of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse’ at 5:21pm on September 11th 2001. With NIST preparing to release its final report into the collapse, the recent ‘mainstreaming’ of 9/11 conspiracy theories couldn’t have come at a more interesting time.
“We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors… but truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7.” - Dr S Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead WTC investigator
The collapse of the 47 storey WTC7 is often the epiphany for 9/11 conspiracy virgins; unlike WTC1 and 2, WTC7 was not hit by an aircraft yet it collapsed symmetrically, at near free fall speed and largely into its own footprint.
Some believe that, despite the damage caused to WTC7 by the collapse of WTC1, and despite the resulting fires, which went untended throughout the day, the only way to account for such a collapse is by controlled demolition. This would point to foreknowledge of the attacks and thus a conspiracy, since the 47 storey WTC7 would have taken several weeks to prepare for a demolition.
The building’s collapse certainly did have the appearance of a controlled demolition.
(see original article for video)
Demolitions expert Danny Jowenko agreed.
(see original article for video)
Two videos even appear to capture the sound of explosions – possibly the same blast event - coming from the direction of WTC7.
(see original article for video)
The second video also shows the area around the building being cleared in anticipation of a collapse.
(see original article for video)
In an interview with Bonnie Faulkner, of KPFA’s Guns and Butter, Indira Singh, a volunteer Emergency Medical Technician on 9/11, goes further, suggesting that the area was cleared in anticipation of a controlled collapse (emphasis added).
SINGH [at 11:22]: …pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much - just flames everywhere and dark smoke - it is entirely possible… I, I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage. That I don’t know - I can’t attest to the… to the um, validity of that. All I can attest to is that by noon or one o’clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down.
FAULKNER: Did they actually use the word ‘brought’ down, and who was it that was telling you this?
SINGH: The fire department. The fire department. And, um, they did use the words “we’re gonna have to bring… we’re gonna have to bring it down”. And for us there, um, observing the nature of the devastation, it was… they made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility. Given the subsequent controversy over it I… I don't know. You know, I’m not an engineer, I don’t know. All I know is, you know, that was my experience.
We backed off a little bit to Pace University. There was another panic around 4 o’clock because they were bringing the building down. And people seemed to know this ahead of time so people were panicking again and running.
This ties in with recently uncovered CNN footage, in which anchor Aaron Brown announces at 4:10pm that building 7 ‘is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing.’
(see original article for video)
By 4:57pm, the BBC were sure that…
…the Salomon Brothers building [WTC7] in New York, right in the heart of Manhattan, has also collapsed.
Yet a short while later, and much to the BBC’s chagrin, correspondent Jane Standley is filmed in front of the still standing WTC7. The loss of her feed just minutes before the building’s actual collapse served to fuel conspiracists’ claims.
(see original article for video)
But nothing has done more to arouse suspicion than comments made in September 2002 by the WTC complex owner, Larry Silverstein. During an interview for a PBS documentary entitled America Rebuilds, he said (emphasis added):
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. And I said, “You know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is… is pull it.” Er… and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.
(see original article for video)
Conspiracy theorists contend that Silverstein’s use of the term ‘pull it’ is an admission that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled manner. Three years later, Siverstein’s spokesman, Dara McQuillan, offered a different interpretation. The statement, which is published on the US Department of State’s web site, reads:
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
This explanation has proven to be almost as controversial as Silverstein’s original comment. Many people are simply not prepared to accept that Silverstein would have used the term ‘pull it’ rather then ‘pull them’ to refer to the withdrawal of a group of firefighters, arguing instead that ‘pull it’ is a demolitions industry term for a controlled demolition. Silverstein’s defenders counter with the claim that the term ‘pull it’ is not used within the demolitions industry to refer to the demolition of a building by way of explosives, but rather by way of cables. However, this is not strictly true. The terms ‘pull’ or ‘pulling’ are frequently used to describe a part of the ‘implosion’ process whereby cutter charges (or a combination of cutter charges and cables) have been set in a particular way to ensure that the perimeter walls of a building are ‘pulled’ in. This is especially common in situations where the building being brought down is in close proximity to neighbouring buildings.
As Stacy Loizeaux, daughter of Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) founder, Mark Loizeaux, explained during an interview with Nova:
There are a series of small explosions [during an implosion], but the building itself isn’t erupting outward. It’s actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we’re really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.
But, even if we accept that the term is not a demolitions industry term for the controlled demolition of a building by way of explosives, there is another problem with Silverstein’s explanation.
According to NIST NCSTAR1-8, The Emergency Response Operations, page 111 (emphasis added)…
One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear. In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30. No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m.
The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires.
Thus, if the building was cleared by 2:00pm; and if the Chief Officer subsequently discussed ‘the FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires’ with his command officer; then the fire department commander could not have informed Silverstein ‘that [the FDNY] were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire’ until after the building had been evacuated.
In other words, there were no firefighters to withdraw at the time Silverstein spoke with the fire department commander.
That aside, there has been a great deal of speculation about the nature of the damage caused to WTC7 by the collapse of WTC1. Whilst early eyewitness accounts were vague about the extent of the damage, one firefighter, Captain Chris Boyle, did report specifically that…
…on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
Until recently, it was thought that Boyle was referring to this trauma at the south west corner.
But a recent ‘find’ appears to show the damage was more extensive.
(see original article for video)
However, the extent to which this new material will support NIST’s preliminary ‘Working Collapse Hypothesis’ for WTC7 is unclear. The vertical gash is towards the west end of the south face. But as ‘Winston Smith’ points out in his paper, entitled ‘Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST’s Estimations’…
NIST’s collapse hypothesis hinges on the failure of one or more of columns 79, 80, and 81 [at the east end of the south face]. The report cites the massive size and strength of the three columns as appearing to require “severe fires and/or damaged fireproofing to initiate thermally-related failures. Damage to the building from WTC1 debris is pointed to as the most likely contributing factor or direct cause of that failure, specifically damage to truss #2 (or adjacent components) which was located on the 6th floor. Simply put, a single truss or a single column is claimed to have been the Achilles heel of the structure, a heel that once broken, caused the entire entire [sic] 47 storey building to implode perfectly in on itself, with no resistance and at free fall rate.
NIST then appears to use a rather exaggerated damage assessment to support its theory.
Perhaps the Achilles heel of NIST’s hypothesis will ultimately prove to be the seismic data. I’ll leave you with the words of researcher and Internet discussion board contributor, LaBTop, who explains in his detailed analysis that (original emphasis):
13 seconds before NIST found their first visual event proof of building failure, the east penthouse roof dent photograph by Nicolas Cianca, some seismic event, comparable to the head-on collision of a huge air plane on each WTC 1 and 2 towers, shook the bedrock at the WTC-7 building.
