The case for controlled demolition in the WTC collapse

"On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building."​

- Louie Cacchioli, a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

“Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” ​

- Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.

"We got down as far as the 74th floor [...] Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell."​

- Kim White, WTC 1 survivor, on 80th floor at time of impact

"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion."​

- FDNY firefighter eyewitness

"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."​

- MSNBC reporter

"The flashlight led us into Borders bookstore, up an escalator and out to Church Street. There were explosions going off everywhere. I was
convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone
was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid
to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended
up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't
know where to run."​

- Eyewitness Teresa Veliz


I believe that both WTC towers were brought down by demolition charges placed throughout the buildings' structures. I don't believe for a second - and neither do many structural engineers - that the towers collapsed after around an hour and a half of "fires" that were almost non-existent in their strength and intensity. There is a rather long history of skyscrapers that have caught fire, for much longer and at much higher temperatures, and none of them had collapsed. An example would be the highrise fire in Madrid earlier this year. This fire burned for more than 18 hours, and at much higher temperatures, yet the building never collapsed. The World Trade Center towers - and WTC-7 - are the first steel-structure buildings in history to ever collapse from fire damage. That is a fact!

I, however, do not believe the towers were brought down the way buildings are normally demolished by explosives, as was the case with WTC-7. I believe that key areas of the support structures (primarily in the basement/foundation) of the towers were gradually blown out, until the buildings finally collapsed by their own weight. This would explain the explosions that were heard starting within seconds of the first plane hitting the North Tower, all the way until the towers collapsed.

If both towers were demolished in the traditional way, it might look too obvious. Kind of like the GIF below, which shows the controlled demolition of WTC-7 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001.



I think one of the key pieces in the case for controlled demolition is WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein's admission that WTC-7 was "pulled." This can be seen and heard in the PBS documentary, America Rebuilds:

"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, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."​

MP3

Let's keep in mind that WTC-7 was located much further from the towers than other buildings that received relatively little damage. The only major difference is that these buildings that did not collapse were not owned by Larry Silverstein, who made billions off of insurance money. Let's also keep in mind that the preparation for a controlled demolition takes literally WEEKS. How was Building 7 brought down just hours after the towers fell, supposedly from "fire damage"? The fact is, it isn't possible.

WTC-7 collapse video

Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges

Anyone who has seen the collapse of WTC-7, notices it bares all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition, from the presence of puffs of smoke, evident of shape charges, to the building's flawless pancake collapse. Even Dan Rather admitted that it looked like the building was intentionally brought down with explosives.

WTC-7 is important, because the official FEMA report tells us the building collapsed from fire damage alone, despite being a block away from the trade towers and not being hit by a plane.

If WTC-7 was brought down by explosives, why shouldn't we believe, in the face of such blatant evidence, that the towers were brought down the same way?

We also cannot ignore the dozens upon dozens of eyewitnesses who saw and heard explosions in and around the towers, prior to their collapse. This includes firefighters and people working in the towers at the time of the attacks.

Here are some links that make the case for government complicity and controlled demolition in these horrific attacks.

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/underground_explosions.htm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/eyewitness.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3337
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm
http://www.wtc7.net/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/07_14_02/Unexplained_9-11_/unexplained_9-11_.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/10...ombs_Expl/some_survivors_say__bombs_expl.html

 

its hard for me to either believe or not believe this...see the thing that makes it hard for me to believe is that planes hit those towers..two huge planes with make amounts of jet feul...that hasent happened on a skyscraper before..but who knows maybe there was a cover up..now about the other building..i have no idea..it all just seems so strane that the government is so freaked about this getting out..if it wasent true u would think the government would act like it isnt a biggie even if it got put on the news..hmmmm

 

I think al Quida placed the bombs in the building.

 

"On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building."​

- Louie Cacchioli, a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

"We got down as far as the 74th floor [...] Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell."​

- Kim White, WTC 1 survivor, on 80th floor at time of impact

I believe that both WTC towers were brought down by demolition charges placed throughout the buildings' structures. I don't believe for a second - and neither do many structural engineers - a fire fighter and a surviver dont qualify as structural engineers do they?.........so really rat what came 1st? the idea of conspiracy at the towers or the website? did you think it was a lil "strange" so you decided to investigate, or did you simply stumble on to the site? kinda convenient all your conspiracys come with their own website yea think?

 

'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.'

So they exploded charges within the building that might have been put there for such a scenario or one wich would involve the toppling of the towers in a uncontroled way. This makes sense.
This does not have the goverment involved with the hijakers or have missiles strapped to the undercarriage of airliners either, does it ? .
This does not involve the illuminati in secret relations with PNAC and international terrorists....in any way.
This does not have the goverment hiring 'terrorists' telling them to fly into buildings and start a global conflict, and him doing all of this for oil. Making GWBs and other nations leaders time within there respective times in office, a right royal pain in the ass.

It has a govermental policy to detonate explosives that might have been their since construction or placed within the building AFTER the planes hit. This also has eye witness accounts of explosions not connected to the theory of their even being explosives within the two building at all... You could even say that the above quote was about the third building and not even the twin towers at all.

 

So why is the official report telling us that WTC-7 collapsed from fire damage?

I too have considered the idea that WTC-7 was wired with explosives when it was built, but explosives do not last very long before they start to degrade and are rendered useless.

The notion that the building was rigged after the planes hit the towers is impossible, since it takes weeks to wire a building for controlled demolition. Building 7 fell just hours after the initial attacks transpired.

And what is this "governmental policy" you are talking about?

 

That would mean their was no detonations and it did indeed collapse from fire damage. Eyewitnesses mentioning 'explosions' does not mean that any explosives were presesnt .... Just a general parlance for erm explosions however they may occur.

Properly maintained and inspected even replaced from time to time ..it could have been just another system within the buildings design. Never heard this actualy happening or being publicaly spoken about as a 'game plan' within the high rise building fraternity .. Seems a little far fetched and inhuman.. but i would assume it would not be actually detonated with people in the building.. Just used as a damage limitation (surrounding buildings and people)

I understand that, thats why i was thinking of it being their in the first place.. This all assumes explosives are present and the buildings were 'pulled'.. It discounts the the fact that large aeroplanes with tons of fuel crashed into the side of a badly designed building.. This type of thing does not happen that often.

That is me being 'conspiratorial' ..No i just meant the fire brigade having the right to 'pull' the building with people inside... the fire brigade work for the people through the goverment.. thats all i meant nothing to heavy.

​

​

​

Do you notice how these two statements contradict each other ?... ​

The only way both things can be true is if bombs were within the buildings and not detonated so it was decieded to blow them up.. but the first statement indicates they were detonating explosives within the building (ready set up for such a task) or a 'rush job' in 'pulling' the building . ​

The first statement is the most rational and reasonable..but ends all 'conspiracys' about secret plots/collaborations secret agenda etc etc and bombs within the building planted by goverment stooges or the people involved in the hijakings. Think of the PR disaster if it was found that the towers were 'pulled' .. however logical the decision might have been. ​

I can accept the buildings could have been deliberatly 'pulled' but for prety dull (however horrific).. reasons. Simple safety issues... I can also see the official story having a lot of credance.. ​

 

I think one of the key pieces in the case for controlled demolition is WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein's admission that WTC-7 was "pulled." This can be seen and heard in the PBS documentary, America Rebuilds: stilll waiting on my last question to be answered but here's this...........when using the word "pulled" in this case between a landlord and a fire fighter it simply means to pull them from the list of buildings to be saved not to demo them! now had this been 2 demolition experts saying this might of had "some "clout

 

Then how come Larry Silverstein Refuses to answer the question he has been asked HUNDREDS of times "What did you mean by pull the building if you did not mean demolish?" he has been asked by many mainstream journalists this same question, and instead of simply answering it like you just did, he refuses to and doesn't answer...why would he do this if he could simply answer this question?

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

like any1 could ever answer what he is thinking? i'll ask you the same question i asked rat "who some how looks right past it" what came 1st? the website or the idea of conspiracy?

 

Matthew - the quotes do not contradict each other because the eyewitness accounts were in reference to bombs in the towers, while the Larry Silverstein quote is in reference to the controlled demolition of WTC-7.

 

so you still ignoring my ?

 

Not true. To "pull" means, in controlled demolitions, to go through with the bringing down of a building. It is the universal term used for controlled demolitions.

I have never heard it used in reference to what you claim, and as far as I know, you made it up. Next time, try backing your words up with proof. If not, shut up. I don't have time to waste arguing with 16 yr. old kids who think they know everything.

Listen to this clip taken from the same documentary, where you hear a demolition expert referring to the bringing down of Building 6, saying "we're getting ready to pull the building six."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit2.mp3

 

Your grammar is very poor, so it's hard to understand exactly what you are asking. But I think you are asking if the website came first, talking about this conspiracy, or the conspiracy itself.

People have been asking these questions since days after 9/11. Some people know how to question things, while others prefer to be lied to. This isn't about conspiracy as much as it is asking simple questions that deserve answers, which our government is refusing to answer.

 

you lil moron 1st i'm old enough to be your dad ok. 2nd start your name calling only proves you want to argue insteadf of debating 3rd i would easliy stomp a mud hole in your ass, to fuckin bad about my grammar which part didnt you understand? did i miss spell something so bad you couldnt decifer it?

 

I proved my point. You are a moron.

 

Not true. To "pull" means, in controlled demolitions, to go through with the bringing down of a building. It is the universal term used for controlled demolitions. just what i said !

"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, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." which one of these 2 is the demolition expert? you wait till later to post some expert demolition people using that term right?​

and yet you still havent answered my question did you find the website before you had thought's of conspiracy?

 

Cadruzer - will you please stop quoting me without using the proper quotations. That is very annoying and hard to read.

And THIS is the clip of the demolition worker (not expert, as I incorrectly said before) referring to Building 6 being "pulled."

 

What website are you referring to? Just type in "WTC-7, controlled demolition" into any earch engine, and you will get thousands of returns.