WTC-7 Was Taken Down By Controlled Demolition

Terral

Terral Corp CEO
Mar 4, 2009
2,493
92
83
Greetings to All:

All of the evidence points directly to inside-job terrorists taking down WTC-7 by Controlled Demolition on 9/11. WTC-7 was designed and built using Compartmentalization of all supporting columns and beams separated by solid concrete slabs horizontally and curtain walls vertically making ‘death by fire’ an impossibility. A building fire has never destroyed a steel-framed skyscraper in US history before or after 9/11 and WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 were owned by Larry “Pull It” Silverstein all suffering the same fate. Many fail to realize the World Trade Center Towers had never been in private hands prior to the summer of 2001, when Mr. Silverstein received possession from the New York Port Authority.

Cooperative Research Website:

This is the only time the WTC has ever changed hands since it was opened in 1973 . . . It was previously controlled by the New York Port Authority, a bi-state government agency . . . Larry Silverstein, the president of Silverstein Properties, only uses $14 million of his own money for the deal. His partners put up a further $111 million, and banks provide $563 million in loans . . . . The Port Authority had carried only $1.5 billion in insurance coverage on all its buildings, including the WTC, but Silverstein’s lenders insist on more, eventually demanding $3.55 billion in cover . . . After 9/11, Larry Silverstein will claim the attacks on the World Trade Center constituted two separate events, thereby entitling him to a double payout totaling over $7 billion.

Watch the [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]WTC-7 Collapse Video[/ame] again:

Use your curser to hold the round scrollbar and move WTC-7 up and down repeatedly. The roof section and the center of the building collapse first, then the two sides plummet at ‘free fall’ velocity like any successful controlled demolition. Before looking at the details of how WTC-7 was built using Compartmentalization of all the steel supports, we need to take a look at the massive building itself.

WTC7Steel.jpg


All of the WTC-7 steel columns, beams, girders and bar joists were bolted down and welded together into a single unit creating literally thousands of connections that must be severed to cause the catastrophic failure seen from the aftermath of the attack.

wtc7-debris.jpg


The melting point of WTC-7 structural steel is 1535 degrees Celsius or 2795 degrees Fahrenheit. The first problem with the ‘Fire Caused The Collapse’ Theory is that building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, or about one third the required temperature to melt structural steel. The second problem is that building fires typically burn for only 20 minutes in any given area, because the fuel is depleted and the fire moves in the direction of a fresh fuel source. The third problem is that steel is an excellent conductor of heat and any steel-framed network would disperse the heat much more quickly than any building fire could raise the temperature to anywhere near ‘steel-softening’ temperatures. Another problem is that all supporting columns were coated with 3-hour ‘spray-on’ fireproofing insulation, which is nine times more protection needed for the typical building fire; even if the required 2800 degree temperatures were reached.

911Research Website:

The website above is perhaps the best on the internet for discovering the truth about the WTC-7 collapse. Moving down the page, Figure 5-3 shows the massive steel network and how certain areas (floors 1-7, 22-24) received extra support.

fig-5-3.jpg


This information is very important, because remember WTC-7 collapsed in one single smooth motion, which means extra attention was paid to placing charges to sever these thicker and stronger steel supports. Try to imagine the amount of energy required to break all of these connections simultaneously and you begin to see the ‘building fire theory’ is certainly a hoax. Below you come to Figure 5.3.3 and descriptions of how WTC-7 was built in many separate ‘compartments’ eliminating ‘fire’ as even a remote possibility for causing this collapse.

WTC7Insulation.jpg


Even if two or five or ten fires were started, the fuel source within those particular compartments would be consumed LONG before the fireproofing safety countermeasures were compromised; and the fire had no way to pass through solid concrete slabs or curtain walls to invade the neighboring compartments. This does not even account for the fully functional sprinkler system that had to be turned off for these fires to spread any distance at all. Here is a four minute video to help gain a better perspective on how to weigh the evidence in this case:

Four Minute WTC-7 Collapse Video

“Fire has never destroyed a steel building,” but three steel buildings owned by Larry Silverstein were ‘Pulled’ on 9/11. “Pull it” is controlled demolition lingo for wiring the building up and pulling it down. Mr. Silverstein was obviously lying about speaking to the New York Fire Chief, as the firemen only entered the scene on 9/11 after the Twin Towers attacks. This Fire Chief had no access to Controlled Demolition charges when he arrived at WTC-7 for “Pulling” down the 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that could possibly be placed in a single day. Here we have a few small fires burning on a few floors, but the Fire Chief cannot figure any way to extinguish them. Since the firemen had no time to set all the required charges to “Pull” WTC-7 down in just a few hours, as if firemen even have controlled demolition crews, then Mr. Silverstein just pointed the finger at himself about having prior knowledge of these 9/11 attacks. Now compare our images of WTC-7 and these “Pull It” videos:

Paris Building

Office Building

Landmark Tower Implosion

Many buildings have been demolished using controlled demolition looking exactly like WTC-7 on 9/11, but again, no steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire in the history of this planet. Twenty-first century demolition techniques include the use of Thermite Shaped Charges found all over WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7.

Shaped Charges And The World Trade Center Collapses

thermite.jpg


The damage from a thermite/thermate shaped charge is exactly what you see above the confused fireman’s head. Note the size of the massive column and the molten iron residue that flowed inside and outside the column.

cut3.jpg


Thermite burns at a very high 2500 degrees Centigrade or 4532 degrees Fahrenheit, which represents the kind of temperature required to sever these massive red-iron columns. As a demolition supervisor (search "Terral") tearing down buildings for many years, I know of nobody using 45-degree angle cuts to remove any red-iron part of any conventional demolition job. This particular column has molten iron residue, which is a ‘Controlled Demolition’ Signature, as any torch cut would blow the molten iron off the column entirely away from the worker. There is no cut from any torch that would leave molten iron residue on the inside and outside of 'all' the sides of a column this way. The idea that any demolition worker would make a 45-degree cut is ridiculous, because of the danger to other workers and the waste of fuel.

Another problem with the Official ‘Fire’ Cover Story is these 45-degree angle shaped-charge cuts appear everywhere . . .

b7_3.jpg


. . . even in locations where demolition crew workers could not possibly reach. The common practice is to remove steel debris in an orderly ‘pick and remove’ manner, which eliminates the possibility of needlessly shifting weight and putting workers in danger. We play this dangerous game like a child plays ‘Pickup Sticks,’ as any skilled demolition foreman can look at the pile and tell you which debris to remove first. None of the demolition workers in the picture above climbed up any ladder forty or fifty feet in the air to make that 45-degree angle cut, because that was part of the original ‘Controlled Demolition’ (AE911Truth.org) of WTC-7. Note the clean 90-degree cuts labeled “Severed Column End” scattered throughout the debris pile. However, also note these steel members are buried under the debris of the walls collapsing upon them ‘during’ the controlled demolition process. These cuts could not have been made by this demolition crew, because they still have mountains of debris to remove before even thinking about cutting any structural steel; which would only serve to shift weight in this very dangerous situation. The very best work on these WTC controlled demolition attacks is presented by Dr. Steven E. Jones (Brigham Young University) here:

Liberty Post Website:

WTC-7 was definitely (100 percent certainty) brought down using Controlled Demolition techniques also found in WTC-1 and WTC-2. This evidence explains why we have reports on hundreds of ‘explosions’ taking place throughout the day.

9/11 Firemen Describe WTC Explosions

And yet, the ‘keyword sanitized’ 911Commission Report only uses the term ‘explosion’ six times outside the notation references for ‘all’ these 9/11 cases combined and never uses the term ‘explosions’ (plural) even once. Guess what? The bogus Arlington County After-Action Report uses the term ‘explosion’ six times in 215 pages ‘and’ also never uses the term ‘explosions’ even one time the very same way, even though we can hear multiple explosions taking place in this single [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WefPzgxvfS4]News Video[/ame].

9/11 was definitely an inside-job and many LIARS are helping the real terrorists get away with murdering thousands of our innocent fellow Americans. Let us see how many Official Cover Story LIARS line up to convince these readers that 9/11 was carried out by people like this (pic) and that building fires and debris took down these WTC skyscrapers . . .

GL,

Terral
 
I find it odd that someone like you who uses so much information to try and make their point would cling to the "pull it" reference as though it means ANYTHING.

I'm someone who still quesstions WTC7. I don't feel as thought there's an adequate explanation yet for why it collapsed, but the whole pull it crap is ridiculous. No one says that when they demolish a building. You're following a red herring with that one.
 
The theory I have heard is that the damage from the collapse of 1 and 2 so damaged the one side of 7 that all the weight was shifted from the damaged one to another. Thus bearing more stress on the whole building. Further the fire raged for 8 hours because there was a constant supply of fuel from the basement to I believe the 8th floor. They had a HUGE tank of fuel that pumped continuously to that floors emergency generator. Other floors also had generators and smaller supplies of fuel at the site.

COnstant fuel to feed to fire for 8 hours would destroy any insulation on the supports that was not already damaged by falling debris. That would leave 5 hours at least to unhinge the metal. It would also raise the temperature of the fire. None of the fire fighting apperatuse in the building worked due to damage from Tower 1 and 2.

But this brings us right back to the fact that in order to bring that big a building down in a "controlled explosion" would require months of preparation , extensive wiring, well placed explosives and extensive construction on the supports and pillars. None of which could be hidden in a working building. Further it would be damaged by the falling debris from 1 and 2 making the timed nature unlikely for control purposes.

And further I love the argument that because it was free falling it couldn't be natural. What the hell is THAT. If supports fail and the top starts to collapse it will take the lower floors with it and it will be in FREE fall.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
Hi Paulie:

I find it odd that someone like you who uses so much information to try and make their point would cling to the "pull it" reference as though it means ANYTHING.

Larry Silverstein’s “Pull it” (link) reference is only one piece of a very large WTC Inside-job Puzzle that ‘is’ worth mentioning in a comprehensive WTC 911Truth explanation.

I'm someone who still questions WTC7.

Really? I did not see any questions in your post . . .

I don't feel as though there's an adequate explanation yet for why it collapsed, but the whole pull it crap is ridiculous.

No. Your assertions that Larry Silverstein’s self-incriminating testimony is ‘crap’ is very much ridiculous. You sit there behind that computer screen and base your WTC conclusions and what “I don’t feel” rather than upon the massive amounts of Controlled Demolition Evidence (link) handed out on a silver platter (link). Here. Let me help these readers accurately identify Paulie’s position in this WTC-7 Debate (pic). :0)

No one says that when they demolish a building. You're following a red herring with that one.

No one? What about Larry ‘Pull It!’ Silverstein? :0)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-PHAh7esGA]YouTube - Larry Silverstein WTC7 "pull it" Statement[/ame]

“Pull It” (911review.org) + “They made the decision to Pull” = “We watched the building collapse.”

Here is your problem, Paulie: The only possible answers to what really brought WTC-7 down are part of the only two choices:

1. Controlled Demolition.
2. Building Fires/Debris.

I am giving you evidence that choice #1 is definitely true and you are welcome to try and make the case for choice #2. Agreed? :0)

Good Luck,

Terral
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
Hi Retired:

The theory I have heard is that the damage from the collapse of 1 and 2 so damaged the one side of 7 that all the weight was shifted from the damaged one to another. Thus bearing more stress on the whole building.

Here is what I see in Post #4 = Retired Guy’s Case.

Further the fire raged for 8 hours because there was a constant supply of fuel from the basement to I believe the 8th floor.

Fires raging? Lord-Have-Mercy . . .

911Research Website:

fig-5-20.jpg


Here is a picture of WTC-7 falling at freefall speed. So where are your building fires? :0) Do you see even one fire through any of the UNBROKEN windows? No. And yet, this building in Madrid burned for more than a full day and remained standing.

madrid_fire.jpg


The ‘building fires did it’ nonsense will never fly, because we are looking at a “Symmetrical Collapse.”

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8]YouTube - WTC7 in Freefall--No Longer Controversial[/ame]

All sides of WTC-7 collapsed at the ‘same time,’ which means all the supporting columns, beams, girders and bar-joists were ‘severed’ at nearly the same ‘time.’ You guys are pretending that someone can start a few fires in a 47-story skyscraper, run away for a few hours, and the thing will magically collapse symmetrically straight down into its own footprint.

They had a HUGE tank of fuel that pumped continuously to that floors emergency generator. Other floors also had generators and smaller supplies of fuel at the site.

Lord-Have-Mercy . . . How many of you guys know the temperature that hydrocarbon fuels burn (1517-degrees F)? Even if a fuel tank (LOL) burned for a kabilliion years, then you still do not have enough released energy to melt one pound of red-iron structural steel! My guess is that none of you have even heard of ‘Compartmentalization’ of supporting red-iron columns and beams! Right?

911Research Website:

5.3.3 Compartmentalization

Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was to be filled with fire-stopping material. (see pic)

Figure 5-11 Compartmentalization provided by concrete floor slabs.

A zoned smoke control system was present in WTC 7. This system was designed to pressurize the floors above and below the floor of alarm, and exhaust the floor of alarm to limit smoke and heat spread.

The fireproofing material used to protect the structural members has been identified by Silverstein Properties as "Monokote." The Port Authority informed the BPS Team that New York City Building Code Construction Classification 1B (2-hour rating for beams, girders, trusses, and 3-hour rating for columns) was specified for WTC 7 in accordance with the architectural specifications on the construction notes drawing PA-O. According to the Port Authority, the construction notes on drawing PA-O also specified the following:

Exterior wall columns (columns engaged in masonry walls) shall be fireproofed on the exterior side with 2-inch solid gypsum, 3-inch hollow gypsum, 2-inch concrete or spray-on fireproofing.

Interior columns shall be fireproofed with materials and have rating conforming with Section C26-313.3 (27-269 current section).

Beams and girders shall be fireproofed with 2-inch grade Portland cement concrete, Gritcrete, or spray-on fireproofing or other materials rendering a 2-hour fire rating.

How did the fire from your lower floor pass through the solid concrete slabs running all the way up the building? :0)

Constant fuel to feed to fire for 8 hours would destroy any insulation on the supports that was not already damaged by falling debris.

Nonsense. Hydrocarbon fires do not burn nearly hot enough to melt any steel, or your gas oven would burn up before cooking anything.

Dailymotion - Fire Couldn't Have Caused WTC Collapse, a video from BadKitty. 911, 9-11, september, 11, thermite

Watch the short video to realize that fire could NOT have caused the WTC collapse.

That would leave 5 hours at least to unhinge the metal. It would also raise the temperature of the fire. None of the fire fighting apperatuse in the building worked due to damage from Tower 1 and 2.

Your first problem is that WTC-7 is 350 feet away (pic). The second problem is that a fire on the eight floor cannot possibly reach through all of the solid concrete slabs. The third problem is that the steel members in any steel-framed network carries heat energy ‘away’ from the fuel source 'more quickly' than any single component can be heated to ‘melting’ temperatures (2800 degrees).

There are a thousand problems with your ‘building fires did it’ supposition, even if you provided one third-party reference in your “I believe” post above, but among them is the simple fact that we have tons and tons and tons of molten metal fused together under ‘all three’ WTC skyscrapers that require ‘thermite/thermate’ charges. Listen to eight minutes from Dr. Steven Jones:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foREyW6LWsI]YouTube - Evidence of Thermite - Dr. Steven Jones[/ame]

But this brings us right back to the fact that in order to bring that big a building down in a "controlled explosion" would require months of preparation , extensive wiring, well placed explosives and extensive construction on the supports and pillars.

The Inside-job bad guys wired the WTC skyscrapers for demolition in about six weeks, but building fires can never burn down a steel-framed skyscraper in a kabillion years . . .

None of which could be hidden in a working building. Further it would be damaged by the falling debris from 1 and 2 making the timed nature unlikely for control purposes.

No sir. Where did you pull this stuff from anyway? Out of your hat? :0)

And further I love the argument that because it was free falling it couldn't be natural.

I love the fact that Retired is coming out here empty handed with nonsense about what could or could not be natural . . . Where is the beef of your ‘building fires did it’ argument anyway? :0)

What the hell is THAT. If supports fail and the top starts to collapse it will take the lower floors with it and it will be in FREE fall.

LOL! A steel-framed skyscraper has NEVER collapsed due to fire in the history of this planet, but exactly three Silverstein-skyscrapers fell into their own footprints on 9/11 and WTC-7 was not even hit by a Jetliner or anything close. Mr. Retired comes out here to offer ‘his I believe testimony,’ because someone else was able to DUPE him the very same way.

GL,

Terral
 
All of the evidence points directly to inside-job terrorists taking down WTC-7 by Controlled Demolition on 9/11.

This is the opening statement of your thread, and i think its funny how you start off with a lie, of course lies are all you "troofers" have, so i shouldnt be surprised. If all the evidence pointed that way, the everyone would agree with your crackpot theory, but they dont, do they. Your credibility was shot from the start of this thread, and i doubt you will become any more honest by the end of it.

You know what you should do...you should cut and paste more lies from your crazy persons website. It amuses me.
 
Last edited:
I find it odd that someone like you who uses so much information to try and make their point would cling to the "pull it" reference as though it means ANYTHING.

I'm someone who still quesstions WTC7. I don't feel as thought there's an adequate explanation yet for why it collapsed, but the whole pull it crap is ridiculous. No one says that when they demolish a building. You're following a red herring with that one.

Its not crap or ridiculous at all..Here look at this link.go to the 32nd one at the bottom that says Popular Mechanics Debunked and click it on.
Canada 9/11 Truth - Videos
watch that video,it only takes about 25 minutes or so.did you watch it? as you heard from listening to it,the radio show host called in a demolition firm with a radio caller on and they confirmed it for him that the term "pull it" IS a demolition term for bring it down.

the evidence in those 47 videos is overwhelming evidence that it was an inside job and that explosives brought down those three towers.I have posted it countless numbers of times for the three 9/11 frady cats diamond dave retired gy sgt and godboy to comment on the videos,but everytime I challenge them to watch those videos and comment on them,they run away with their tails between their legs and never bother to watch them or comment on them cause they see they cant debunk them,therfore they never finish watching the rest of them since it disproves the 9/11 coverup commission.

what I think is funny is that Silverstein later tried to fix his mistake when he spilled the beans about pull it in 2004,he later said he meant to pull the firemen out.funny how he refers to the firemen as it.:lol::lol::lol:plus apparently all the firemen were long gone from building 7.what a freaking liar silverstien is.Lets hang the bastard.
 
I heard it was Elvis Presley who owned the demolition company.
 
The pull it crapola, and lord knows EVERYTHING else being brought out on all of this... has been THOROUGHLY debunked... the specials run on Discovery and other places have blown all this shit out of the water... and yet these morons STILL keep coming back to it...

Seel mental health experts to help you with your obvious mental problems, truffers
 
Hi Jillian and Godboy:

you keep citing over and over again to the same troofer site.

do you really think that's at all compelling?
This is the opening statement of your thread, and i think its funny how you start off with a lie, of course lies are all you "troofers" have, so i shouldnt be surprised. If all the evidence pointed that way, the everyone would agree with your crackpot theory, but they dont, do they. Your credibility was shot from the start of this thread, and i doubt you will become any more honest by the end of it.

You know what you should do...you should cut and paste more lies from your crazy persons website. It amuses me.

Please forgive, but what did either of you guys ‘quote >>’ from the Opening Post to prove wrong in any way using your own examples of ‘credible evidence?’ Nothing. Both of you chit-chat about ‘troffers’ like somebody is supposed to be impressed with all of your whining and crying. If you have evidence that building fires/debris took down WTC-7 (the Official Cover Story), then this is your grand opportunity to make that case. Thus far you guys appear to be on the losing end of the most one-sided 911Truth Debate in USMessageBoard history . . . You say this 47-story steel-framed skyscraper . . .

WTC7Steel.jpg


. . . was reduced to this little pile . . .

wtc7-debris.jpg


. . . in just about 6.6 seconds . . .

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]YouTube - wtc 7 collapse[/ame]

. . . from a few building fires and debris. Now THAT is really crazy. :cuckoo::cuckoo:

GL,

Terral
 
Last edited:
Hi Dave:

All of this horseshit has been thoroughly debunked over and over and over and over again

But these mental midgets cling to it like a 6 week old baby to a nipple

If these things have been ‘debunked’ (heh) over and over again, then where is Dave’s supported argument against one thing presented in the OP "Controlled Demolition" explanation of this thread? :0) These guys strut around here empty handed and empty headed and pretend that the battle is somehow over. Scripture says,

“Then the king of Israel replied, "Tell him, 'Let not him who girds on his armor boast like him who takes it off.'" 1Kings 20:11.

Where is Dave’s “Building Fires/Debris Did It” Case using whatever he calls ‘credible evidence?’ I do believe Dave and many of these two-liner whiners have lips firmly wrapped around Senor Bushie’s middle nipple. :0)

GL,

Terral
 
Last edited:
You and your ilk have proven NOTHING.. you twist and spin and have absolutely no truth behind anything that you post... zero truth at all..

You are mentally ill and the world would be a better place if you would stick you head in a noose and jump
 
we should believe alex jones and david ray griffin over structural engineers and physicists who have explained how and why these events transpired.
 
it just amazes me that anyone would think that a controlled demolition could be set up in the middle of downtown manhattan, in a major traffic location, and no one would notice.

let's not even get into what the possible motivation would be for our government to kill 3,000 people at the beginning of their workday.

this is why the troofers are loonies.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1Gc_Wyotzw]YouTube - History Channel - 9/11 Myths Part 1[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SpADWOCqCs]YouTube - History Channel - 9/11 Myths Part 2[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHZ4w8feL1g]YouTube - History Channel - 9/11 Myths Part 3[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxa5dLSIWrM]YouTube - History Channel - 9/11 Myths Part 4[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B3BBD6_g6U]YouTube - History Channel - 9/11 Myths Part 6[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiSaZRmzCm8]YouTube - History Channel - 9/11 myths Part 7[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7MIQtPklzs]YouTube - History Channel - 9/11 Myths Part 8[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikovKyhWGcE]YouTube - History Channel - 9/11 Myths Part 9[/ame]
 

Forum List

Back
Top