Controlled demolition of World Trade Center 7 Building

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHRrpG_p1kI

[wildbilln864]

1. "It's gone man!" nt

[LakeSamish706]

2. I defy anyone (by watching that video) to say this wasn't Controlled Demolition..

The building felt right into it's own foot print....

[Realityhack]

4. Completely irrelevant

What people can do "by watching that video" is completely irrelevant. You could just as easily say 'I defy anyone to prove by watching that video that Santa Clause isn't real' then show a clip of someone dressed as Santa. The evidence required to make the determination is not presented within the video.

It doesn't really matter what you think from looking at the video. The information isn't there.

I see no reason to conclude that building 7 was a controlled demolition other than your untrained visual 'analysis' off a youtube vid.

I seem to remember similar 'analysis's' being made regarding Terry Shivo

[seemslikeadream]

5. Comparing this to Terry Shivo case is insane

[Realityhack]

7. No. The comparison of one aspect is reasonable.

Making a diagnosis of Terry Shivo from video is insane. You can't do that, because you aren't viewing the appropriate data. To an untrained person unfamiliar with the other relevant facts she might appear to be responsive. In fact she DID appear responsive to many untrained uninformed people.
Making a 'diagnosis' of controlled demolition of building 7 similarly relies on inadequate information and may very well lead an untrained, uninformed person to reach an incorrect conclusion.

[seemslikeadream]

10. No you are wrong

In my opinion

[Realityhack]

11. Wow SLAD...

what a helpful and insightful post. Now I understand exactly what you felt was wrong with my analogy.

Seems to me like I tried to clarify the meaning of my post and all you did was call it 'insane' without siting any reason or issue.

[vincent_vega_lives]

17. Yep

Sure did look like a Controlled demolition. But then...it sure didn't sound like a controlled demolition involving explosive cutting charges.

[SDuderstadt]

36. How does....

"falling into its own footprint" prove it was controlled demolition? Should it have just fallen on its side? Do you think the way the building was designed/constructed might have something to do with how it fell?

[Bolo Boffin]

3. This wasn't controlled demolition.

For one thing, no characteristics of explosives were seen in the seismographs that would have recorded those characteristics.

Second, that angle shows only the upper third of the building collapses.

Third, that clip only shows the last few seconds of the external evidence of the progressive collapse.

Fourth, the video zeros in four times on part of the southern facade ripping away from the southwest corner where damage is clearly present after the collapse of 1 World Trade.

Fifth, a perimeter was cleared around WTC 7 by Daniel Nigro who let no one near the building.

Sixth, there was no time that explosives could have been put in the building. Not that day, and not before then (the building held an stock exchange that was manned 24/7 on the lower floors -- people were in and out of the building at all times of the day and night).

[Diane_nyc]

16. Stock exchange in WTC 7?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=214984&mesg_id=215018">boloboffin wrote:

Sixth, there was no time that explosives could have been put in the building. Not that day, and not before then (the building held an stock exchange that was manned 24/7 on the lower floors -- people were in and out of the building at all times of the day and night).

Where do you get your information about this stock exchange? In the tenant list in Chapter 5 of the FEMA report, I don't find any tenant, on any of the lower floors, whose name sounds like a stock exchange. I find the Securities and Exchange Commission on floors 11 to 13, but that's a federal agency, not a stock exchange.

Anyhow, if indeed explosives (or anything else) were planted in WTC 7, one would expect this to have been disguised as "elevator maintenance," or something, in which case the presence of people 24/7 wouldn't matter. And, since WTC 7 was privately owned, not very many people would have to have been in on the decision as to which "maintenance contractors" to bring in and when.

I'm not claiming here that WTC 7 was demolished with explosives (or anything else). I'm just pointing out that "people were in and out of the building at all times of the day and night" is not a very good argument against it.

A much better argument against explosive demolition is the apparent absence of sufficiently loud explosive sounds.

[seemslikeadream]

20. Where do you get your information about this stock exchange?

link, him? :rofl:

[hack89]

25. They were three trading floors for Salomon Brothers

In November 1988, Salomon Brothers withdrew from plans to build a large new complex at Columbus Circle in Midtown and agreed to a 20-year lease for the top 19 floors of 7 World Trade Center.<23> The building was extensively renovated in 1989 to accommodate the needs of Salomon Brothers.<24> Most of three existing floors were removed as tenants continued to occupy other floors, and more than 350 tons (U.S.) of steel were added to construct three double-height trading floors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Tenants

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Oh, thank you for that.

My problem was I'd gotten it into my head that it was a "stock exchange" and couldn't find anything like that around. When I finally chased down my source, it was "three trading floors," and bam, you've got it at Wiki.

Ah, corroboration. It's sweet. Also, admitting one's mistakes (especially when your mistakes don't endanger your overall point). That's sweet, too.

[Diane_nyc]

37. Upper floors vs. lower floors

As mentioned in the Wikipedia article http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=214984&mesg_id=215837">hack89's post here, Salomon Brothers' floors were "the top 19 floors of 7 World Trade Center." Thus, the "three double-height trading floors" were on upper floors, not lower floors, as had been claimed in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=214984&mesg_id=215018">Boloboffin's earlier post.

In my earlier http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=214984&mesg_id=215200">reply to Boloboffin, I explained why occupancy of the building 24/7 would not necessarily preclude the planting of explosives or incendiaries:

Anyhow, if indeed explosives (or anything else) were planted in WTC 7, one would expect this to have been disguised as "elevator maintenance," or something, in which case the presence of people 24/7 wouldn't matter. And, since WTC 7 was privately owned, not very many people would have to have been in on the decision as to which "maintenance contractors" to bring in and when.

I'm not claiming here that WTC 7 was demolished with explosives (or anything else). I'm just pointing out that "people were in and out of the building at all times of the day and night" is not a very good argument against it.

Since the trading floors were upper floors, not lower floors, then all the more so would their presence not preclude the planting of explosives or incendiaries, since they most likely would have been planted primarily on lower floors, if indeed that were to have occurred.

Anyhow, the anonymous JREFer quoted in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=214984&mesg_id=215813">Boloboffin's later post here says:

I worked at this building for 3 years including 9-11.

This building wasn't known as the "CIA" building or the "Rudy" building. It was known as the "Salomon" building. Flooors 27-44 were all Salomon and we had taken space on floors below that too after the merger with Smith Barney.

We had three floors that had 24x7 365 days a year coverage as trading floors and people working long, crazy hours on numerous others. The merger also caused the workspace to get very crowded too. We were packed in together like rats.

All this and you're of the opinion that the building was wired for controlled demolition without a soul noticing a bit of significant construction.

"Elevator maintenance" might not seem like "significant construction." Ditto for some other conceivable kinds of "maintenance" or "upgrades." In big, busy buildings, most people simply ignore men with toolboxes who look like they belong there.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Salomon had the lower six as well.

The trading floors were in the upper, I'm sure, but Salomon had the bottom floors as well.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants7.html

You are arguing "God of the Gaps" right now. Do you understand why I say that?

[Diane_nyc]

39. That CNN report contradicts the FEMA report

The http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants7.html">CNN news story you cited contradicts Chapter 5 of the FEMA report regarding who/what was on the lower floors.

It doesn't seem likely to me that either CNN or FEMA would have a motive to lie about who/what the tenants were on floors 1 to 6. (They might conceivably have motives to lie about other things, but not about the tenant list in particular, as far as I can imagine offhand.) So then, at least one of them must be honestly mistaken.

And it seems to me that CNN would be more likely than FEMA to be honestly mistaken, because (1) the CNN report was probably written in much more of a hurry and (2) the CNN report doesn't mention some things on the lower floors that we know about, from other sources besides just the FEMA report, such as the power station.

Hence I conclude that the CNN report is probably wrong about Salomon Smith Barney occupying floors 1 to 6. Perhaps SSB occupied a very small amount of space on those floors, but probably no more than that, if indeed they occupied any space on the lower floors at all.

No, I don't know what you mean by saying that I am arguing "God of the gaps." Could you please clarify?

[Bolo Boffin]

21. I've finally found my source.

It's not a stock exchange, actually. My bad. It was three floors of people jammed together on trading floors.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3262007#post3262007

I worked at this building for 3 years including 9-11.

This building wasn't known as the "CIA" building or the "Rudy" building. It was known as the "Salomon" building. Flooors 27-44 were all Salomon and we had taken space on floors below that too after the merger with Smith Barney.

We had three floors that had 24x7 365 days a year coverage as trading floors and people working long, crazy hours on numerous others. The merger also caused the workspace to get very crowded too. We were packed in together like rats.

All this and you're of the opinion that the building was wired for controlled demolition without a soul noticing a bit of significant construction.

The kind of crazy hours the poster there is talking was 80 hour weeks.

[Ghost in the Machine]

22. Source = another anonymous poster, and a JREFer too!!

:rofl:

[seemslikeadream]

23. Damn ya beat me to it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9P-rrVZDKA


Painted in 1989, after 9/11 some people sent me a picture of a portion of this painting that I completely forgotten about.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Oh, was there something of substance there?

Feel free to hit me with it since I can't read that post.

[seemslikeadream]

6. According to Scott Forbes "power down"

http://summeroftruth.org/confronting_the_evidence.html

[Realityhack]

8. Please feel free...

to point out what part of the link you think is relevant to this particular point.

[seemslikeadream]

9. Please feel free.........

to do what you want with it, I happen to think it's as appropriate as the one immediately posted before mine

[Realityhack]

12. You mean the OP? n/t

[seemslikeadream]

13. no post 3

[Bolo Boffin]

14. If you intended it as a response to my post, why didn't you hit reply to my post? n/t

[Realityhack]

18. SLAD post 3 actually has content.

It makes a brief clear claim.

Your post provides only a link to a very long article. You don't even provide a one sentence summary of what point made within you are referencing.

And even when this was pointed out you failed to provide any indication of what part was relevant.

In other words NO it is not as appropriate as post 3 because your post is an unexplained link while post 3 has actual content.

[seemslikeadream]

19. I am finished with you also

bye!

[SDuderstadt]

15. Forbes was talking about 1 (not even both) of the towers, not...

WTC 7. Duh.

[dailykoff]

27. Looks almost exactly like Pruit Igoe coming down. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t29fgA5M7VA

The demos start at 5:15. The resemblance is really uncanny, right down to the little puffs at the start. There are also a couple of much taller highrises that come down starting at 6:04 that look even more like WTC-7.

Face it, there's no possible way this wasn't a demo, none.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. They used nukes on Pruit Igoe??????? n/t

[dailykoff]

29. WTC-7 was a pretty conventional high rise. No nukes needed.

WTC 1 and 2 on the other hand were much tougher customers, as we discovered in 1993.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Oooookay. n/t

[dailykoff]

31. There are several reasons a conventional demo wouldn't have worked

on the towers. Two that come to mind are 1) they needed to preserve the basements, instead of letting them fill with debris, and 2) there would have been too damn much debris anyway, and they would have had trouble keeping it on the site. That's probably the strongest visual evidence that nukes were used -- a lot of the tower building materials literally vanished.

[hack89]

32. You really think the basements were "preserved" ?

what nonsense - they were full of debris. Show me a single account of how the basements were intact.

And while you are at it - how did the building get reduced to dust while not making the dust radio active? And how did all those electronic recording devices escape the EMP? And can you show me the high pressure blast wave as it traveled through all the smoke that was pouring out of the towers?

[dailykoff]

33. Yes, of course the basements were preserved. We've been through this many times:

WTC Station Platform after the event; this PATH train wasn't crushed.


Warner Bros. store contents from WTC mall.


Warner Bros. figures from WTC mall.


There was no significant damage to the bathtub on 9/11. This picture looks west-northwest, from the center of the WTC 1 footprint.

Go here for more:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html

[hack89]

34. Two classic truther habits in one post

1. Cherry pick a limited selection of evidence and declare that it is the only proof needed.

2. Post a picture and mis-interpret what it shows when in fact it shows the opposite of what they think it does.

Here are some articles that show how wrong you are about the basement and the bathtub. To summarize:

1. While the damage was uneven, and there were in fact areas that were undamaged, other areas suffered severe damage due to falling debris. This damage extended down all 6 floors in many places.

2. The bath tub was designed to be supported by the floors in the basement levels. The basement floors were so damaged that in many places the only thing keeping the bathtub from collapsing was the debris itself. It was a huge engineering challenge to support the bathtub as the debris was remove. If you look at your picture you can see all the small metals squares from the tieback cables inserted to anchor the wall to the bed rock.

Enjoy

The biggest remaining chores are concentrated in the northwestern section of the site. It is here that clifflike faces have formed, in a Niagara Falls-shaped semicircle, from what is left of multifloored subbasements that now end at a ledge to nowhere.

That semicircular shape was carved by a deadly barrage of steel members that cascaded from the north tower, as well as detritus from smaller structures, smashing a hole through an adjacent eight-story building all the way down to the bedrock. So much fell into this spot that the pile of compacted debris now fills the crater.

Nothing is simple at this site. Workers cannot merely clear out the crater, as the pressure of the debris helps support the nearby slurry wall. So as the debris is removed, holes must be drilled through the slurry wall along Vesey Street, angling downward toward the bedrock. There the tieback cables can be anchored like guylines around a tent.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903E1DA1738F930A25752C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

A few feet south of the cafe, the floor abruptly ends, as if something has bitten it off, but a stairway near the escalators leads down to the train station, at the bottom of the basement.

Among the sodden chaos of fallen steel and cracked walls, the ceiling slopes downward on the south end of the platform at about a 20-degree angle and ultimately meets the train tracks.

Half a train car emerges from the nothingness between floor and ceiling and connects to a string of four more cars to the north.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E5D6163BF936A25752C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

And last Thursday, a bit farther south, a team of New York City Transit engineers and contractors went underground, past the abandoned turnstiles and token booths of the Cortlandt Street station that served the trade center. It was a journey, one engineer said, that felt like a visit to the Titanic.

Wearing respirators and hard hats, equipped with flashlights and gas meters to detect any chemicals lingering in the air, the team lumbered along the station's platform toward a truly hellish sight. A chunk of the south tower had tumbled down, dozens of stories, to a final stop right there in the gloom of the tunnel.

The engineers gaped at the destruction.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903E1DA1738F930A25752C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3

[Diane_nyc]

40. Your post was not addressed to a "classic truther."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=214984&mesg_id=216005">hack89 wrote, in reply to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=214984&mesg_id=215872">a post by dailykoff:

34. Two classic truther habits in one post

dailykoff is a no-planer. Only a minority of self-described 9/11 Truth activists support no-planes theories, especially regarding the WTC buildings.

Kindly don't take dailykoff's style as typical of "truthers." No-planers do differ substantially from the rest of us, in more ways than just embracing no-planes claims.

[dailykoff]

42. Hoo boy. Not worth the trouble. (n/t)

[hack89]

43. You didn't read the links - did you? nt

[hack89]

35. Why are you ignoring my questions about

radioactive dust, EMP and the shock wave? Truther science is pretty flexible - surely there is an explanation?

[dailykoff]

41. I'm taking them one at a time.

Your second question was "how did the building get reduced to dust while not making the dust radio active?"

Answer: What makes you think the dust wasn't radioactive? Did you analyze any of it?

[hack89]

44. These guys did

no indication of radioactivity or nuclear byproducts:

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

You have inadvertently pointed out one of the glaring failures of the truth movement. All those educated and intelligent people and yet not a single one thought of going to NY and getting a dust sample to test for explosives? Why? The stuff was everywhere - take a shovel and a garbage bag up to any roof top near ground zero and you could have easily collected all you needed. But for some reason nobody did - curious. I think that someone actually did and didn't like the results so they kept quiet.


Lets think about what you are saying. Lower Manhattan was blanketed with tons of radioactive dust. Now due to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we know very well how people respond to radiation. So where are the excessive deaths? The cancer clusters? The spike in birth defects?

[dailykoff]

48. Wrong again, as usual.

These guys tested dust in the Deutsche Bank building for contaminants some years after 911 (the actual date of testing is unclear), but if they tested for radioactivity, they make no mention of it. So this report proves nothing.

Fail.

[hack89]

49. And my other points?

BTW - wouldn't there be uranium or other fission products in the dust?

[Twist_U_Up]

45. The Money Shot.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. How could you conceivably call 7 the money shot?

Most people don't even know about 7.

Oh, you mean that's the one that CTers use most often to make their money. Understood.

[Twist_U_Up]

47. spin boffin spin