WTC-7 Was Taken Down By Controlled Demolition

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by Terral, Mar 9, 2009.

  1. Terral
    Offline

    Terral Terral Corp CEO

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,490
    Thanks Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +91
    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:

    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.

    [​IMG]

    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.

    [​IMG]

    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.

    [​IMG]

    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.

    [​IMG]

    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

    [​IMG]

    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.

    [​IMG]

    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 . . .

    [​IMG]

    . . . 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
     
  2. Yukon
    Offline

    Yukon BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,025
    Thanks Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +99
    I thought Chenney did it?
     
  3. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,577
    Thanks Received:
    4,856
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,424
    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.
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,575
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,990
    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.
     
  5. Terral
    Offline

    Terral Terral Corp CEO

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,490
    Thanks Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +91
    Hi Paulie:

    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.

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

    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? 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: Mar 9, 2009
  6. Terral
    Offline

    Terral Terral Corp CEO

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,490
    Thanks Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +91
    Hi Retired:

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

    Fires raging? Lord-Have-Mercy . . .

    911Research Website:

    [​IMG]

    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.

    [​IMG]

    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.

    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:

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

    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.

    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]

    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 . . .

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

    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)

    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
     
  7. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,557
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,434
    you keep citing over and over again to the same troofer site.

    do you really think that's at all compelling?
     
  8. Godboy
    Offline

    Godboy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    6,870
    Thanks Received:
    1,359
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,473
    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: Mar 9, 2009
  9. DiamondDave
    Offline

    DiamondDave Army Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    18,169
    Thanks Received:
    2,812
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Ratings:
    +2,816
    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
     
  10. LA RAM FAN
    Offline

    LA RAM FAN Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    20,797
    Thanks Received:
    923
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,761
    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.
     

Share This Page