Does it? I would say it implies something, I know not what, but I don't think anyone can say it implies anything specific. It could imply the building was infested with explosive mice, who knows...EmptyBee wrote:It's sufficient to acknowledge that if the place was rigged for demolition it implies advance knowledge on the part of whoever did that.
The Conspiracy Files
Moderator: Peak Moderation
Building 7 contained various offices including those of the CIA. It also housed Mayor Guiliani's Emergency Management Office and as such the building was dubbed 'the bunker' by the local press due to its bomb proofing and independent water and electricity supplies. Many people believed the building was 'pulled' by Silverstein to ensure a profitable insurance payout although this has not been forthcoming to this day as far as I know. Alternative theories like the one by former German defence minister, Andreas von Bulow, suggest the building was being used as the command centre for the operation and as such it was destroyed to hide the evidence.ianryder wrote:Doesn't it also require drilling big holes everywhere and km's of wires dotted about the place? I should probably stop as I don't know the subject that well and I'm sure there's a view on every argument. Just not sure how dropping that building would have advanced the cause of Bush etc given that nobody really cared after the 2 main buildings had gone. It wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back...the camel was long since gone!EmptyBee wrote:Yes it's new.
You do realise that 'taking down' a skyscraper is not something you can accomplish in an afternoons work right? Skyscrapers do not come with self-destruct buttons. And this one was evacuated as it was on fire. not exactly an ideal working environment.
I'm not sure about that!EmptyBee wrote: Skyscrapers do not come with self-destruct buttons.
I will hereby deviate from my pattern of just adressing the open questions, and actually suggest a theory!
If you own a building like WTC 1, 2 or 7, you sure like to have an insurance. Right? How do you calculate the insurance premium for such a building? It can cause so many forms of completely unpredictable collateral damage if it fell, so the answer is: You cant!
If you were to issue an insurance policy which included all possible forms of collateral damage, you would have to keep constant track of all activities in all surrounding buildings, and adjust the premium if some high-value activity moves in or out in the neighbourghood. Mission impossible!
The solution: Limit the insurance to the building only. It's the only way. Where does this leave the owner? The owner thus MUST have the option of controlled demolition at hand at all times in order to be able to limit collateral damage (and damage claims). The more I've been thinking about it, the more sense it makes. In fact, it makes all the sense in the world to include that button when designing and building the skyscrapers.
It also makes all the sense in the world to keep quiet about that button.
Such a scenario would handily explain Silberstein's slip on the decision to "pull". They could very well have had the ability to "pull" from the day the buildings went up.
It is fully possible that the collapses were a bonus effect resulting from someone making a panic decision. Or taking the chance to get rid of the albatrosses those asbest filled buildings actually were. A quick decision to do some serious insurance fraud maybe? The possibility is certainly not off from my map.
See Last man down, the Fireman's story by Richard Piccioto. He describes the call going over the Radio to "Pull" WTC 7. He explains what it all means.EmptyBee wrote:It's not necessary to come up with a theory for why WTC7 was imploded
This has certainly be put forward before. I think I first read about this idea back in 2003 and it is certainly a possibility. However, many other tall buildings were also hit that day and they remained standing until they could be demolished at later dates. Also, the reporting of building 7 in the official invetsigation is poor to say the least. Why not come clean about it if such a tactic were employed so that the conspiracies can be silenced?MacG wrote:I'm not sure about that!EmptyBee wrote: Skyscrapers do not come with self-destruct buttons.
I will hereby deviate from my pattern of just adressing the open questions, and actually suggest a theory!
If you own a building like WTC 1, 2 or 7, you sure like to have an insurance. Right? How do you calculate the insurance premium for such a building? It can cause so many forms of completely unpredictable collateral damage if it fell, so the answer is: You cant!
If you were to issue an insurance policy which included all possible forms of collateral damage, you would have to keep constant track of all activities in all surrounding buildings, and adjust the premium if some high-value activity moves in or out in the neighbourghood. Mission impossible!
The solution: Limit the insurance to the building only. It's the only way. Where does this leave the owner? The owner thus MUST have the option of controlled demolition at hand at all times in order to be able to limit collateral damage (and damage claims). The more I've been thinking about it, the more sense it makes. In fact, it makes all the sense in the world to include that button when designing and building the skyscrapers.
It also makes all the sense in the world to keep quiet about that button.
Such a scenario would handily explain Silberstein's slip on the decision to "pull". They could very well have had the ability to "pull" from the day the buildings went up.
It is fully possible that the collapses were a bonus effect resulting from someone making a panic decision. Or taking the chance to get rid of the albatrosses those asbest filled buildings actually were. A quick decision to do some serious insurance fraud maybe? The possibility is certainly not off from my map.
For the BBC to have reported this event before it happened does seem extremely strange. Is it normal to state that something has happened before it actually does on live TV?
I presume he corroborates Silverstein's testimony that "pull" in this context meant, pull out, abort or whatever, not demolish. I have heard that already, not sure who to believe tbh. Silverstein's words seem completely ambiguous.GD wrote:See Last man down, the Fireman's story by Richard Piccioto. He describes the call going over the Radio to "Pull" WTC 7. He explains what it all means.EmptyBee wrote:It's not necessary to come up with a theory for why WTC7 was imploded
There is evidence that people were somehow aware that WTC7 was about to collapse: Video Clip
"[sound of a bang or explosion]Man:"You hear that?" 2ndMan "Keep an eye on that building it'll be coming down soon."
Last edited by EmptyBee on 26 Feb 2007, 17:14, edited 3 times in total.
To 'pull' a building is not a normal event. In fact it is very out of the ordinary. Buildings are not wired up for demolition as a rule just in case they blow up accidently.GD wrote:See Last man down, the Fireman's story by Richard Piccioto. He describes the call going over the Radio to "Pull" WTC 7. He explains what it all means.EmptyBee wrote:It's not necessary to come up with a theory for why WTC7 was imploded
This building was on fire (although not until much later in the day) so it would have been hard to have rigged up the explosives. Secondly, since no steel skyscraper has ever collpased due to fire, why would they have destroyed the building instead of saving it. Firemen stop fires. They don't initiate demolitions especially when the demolition of said building causes significant damage to the adjacent building which in turn has to be demolished as in the case of 30 West Broadway
It does raise the question of course, that if this was a demolition, why is it so hard to believe that the twin towers themselves were 'pulled'. That would explain a lot.
Last edited by Bozzio on 26 Feb 2007, 17:15, edited 1 time in total.
Maybe. But if such buildings comes with a self-destruct button (still a big IF), where would you put the button? High up in the fire department is a good guess. Who else can provide 24/7/365 manning? And is set up to be first on the scene at major accidents?Bozzio wrote:Firemen stop fires. They don't initiate demolitions.
But you make it sound as if this is the final word when clearly it isn't. Sorry to sound like I'm getting angry, it's just that pulling a building is not a normal event, especially to one which had been burning for only a few hours and without much noticeable structural damage (contrary to what the BBC stated last week)GD wrote:I'm just saying what I read in that guy's account. I can't quote further, as I read it ages ago, and the book belong to my father-in-law who lives up in Wales. Perhaps if anyone's interested enough they'll seek it in their local Library.
Agreed.MacG wrote:Maybe. But if such buildings comes with a self-destruct button (still a big IF), where would you put the button? High up in the fire department is a good guess. Who else can provide 24/7/365 manning? And is set up to be first on the scene at major accidents?Bozzio wrote:Firemen stop fires. They don't initiate demolitions.
Even if you choose the charitable interpretation that the BBC got the wrong end of the stick in a press release pertaining to the status of building 7, I think it's worth reiterating that the official story of collapse by fire is completely incompatible with a news story stating the event had already occurred before it actually did, when you consider
a) WTC7 would have been the first skyscraper to have collapsed from fire alone, although some make unsubstantiated claims that falling debris 'scooped out' the front side of the building.
and
b) Collapses, as opposed to demolitions, are such inherently unpredictable events that it's hard to understand how anyone knew with any degree of confidence that the building was about to fall, or was likely to fall at all.
and
c) The nature of the collapse when it finally happened, having all the physical characteristics of a controlled demolition/implosion.
a) WTC7 would have been the first skyscraper to have collapsed from fire alone, although some make unsubstantiated claims that falling debris 'scooped out' the front side of the building.
and
b) Collapses, as opposed to demolitions, are such inherently unpredictable events that it's hard to understand how anyone knew with any degree of confidence that the building was about to fall, or was likely to fall at all.
and
c) The nature of the collapse when it finally happened, having all the physical characteristics of a controlled demolition/implosion.
I've at last managed to download and view that film.
I've a strong suspicion that she wasn't at any window but was in a poxy studio somewhere, with a canned feed acting as background.
More importantly:
1. Whoever made that film spent a long time on it .. so why didn't they provide more info on the purported Press Release? A timed document must exist somewhere! Has anyone here seen any copy of any such Press Release? I tried a quick Google search and couldn't find any Press Release ... who would issue such a thing anyway?
2. Why hasn't that film been surpressed? How did I manage to download it? If Mr Bush & his thousands of trusty (and very tight lipped) agents really did kill 3000 people then blocking that film would be a simple matter.
If anyone has contacts at the BBC why not simply ask them if the use of canned background is likely?
I can say however even if this weird film is innocent, it will stay to haunt us for ever, courtesy of the 9/11 crowd!
I look forward to what the BBC say about it!
I've a strong suspicion that she wasn't at any window but was in a poxy studio somewhere, with a canned feed acting as background.
More importantly:
1. Whoever made that film spent a long time on it .. so why didn't they provide more info on the purported Press Release? A timed document must exist somewhere! Has anyone here seen any copy of any such Press Release? I tried a quick Google search and couldn't find any Press Release ... who would issue such a thing anyway?
2. Why hasn't that film been surpressed? How did I manage to download it? If Mr Bush & his thousands of trusty (and very tight lipped) agents really did kill 3000 people then blocking that film would be a simple matter.
If anyone has contacts at the BBC why not simply ask them if the use of canned background is likely?
I can say however even if this weird film is innocent, it will stay to haunt us for ever, courtesy of the 9/11 crowd!
I look forward to what the BBC say about it!
It could be a fake, but that raises more questions than it answers.
The question of who made it is important. Can't say I'd blame them for being anonymous personally, but it leaves a question mark.
According to google that video hasn't been snatched more than 1087 times since I last looked. That's about what it was when I got it this morning. A bunch of people are complaining it's been pulled.
It's being mirrored on a bitorrent site here:
http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/
As far as canned background goes- I'd say that's improbable. She clearly gestures to the scene behind her and the camera zooms in at one point. That doesn't make any sense if it's just a recycled backdrop. Also note the smoke direction is basically the same pattern as visible in the CBS video.
The question of who made it is important. Can't say I'd blame them for being anonymous personally, but it leaves a question mark.
According to google that video hasn't been snatched more than 1087 times since I last looked. That's about what it was when I got it this morning. A bunch of people are complaining it's been pulled.
It's being mirrored on a bitorrent site here:
http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/
As far as canned background goes- I'd say that's improbable. She clearly gestures to the scene behind her and the camera zooms in at one point. That doesn't make any sense if it's just a recycled backdrop. Also note the smoke direction is basically the same pattern as visible in the CBS video.
Vortex,
I think you are clutching at burning straws with this one. It is very obvious the reporter is not stood in front of a screen. Surely even you know in your heart that this isn't the case.
The url for this clip comes from the url given at the beginning of the video in question. This is 1GB of news footage from that day. I can give you a breakdown of the segments if you like for easy downloading.
You of course ask valid questions but I cannot understand how you can claim there to be an innocent explanation. The reporter is speaking about the collapse of the Salomon building which happens to be standing behind her still intact.
The problem here is that this suggests by reasonable assumption that forewarning was given of the collapse. Since buildings on fire don't usually collapse on cue (or completely) then consideration must be given to the idea that a controlled demolition had been planned. Regardless of whether you or I think a controlled demolition could have happened to hide something, capitalize on something or in a less sinister way to reduce the damage caused by a building on fire, the official story does not accept any demolition took place or that it was in any way premeditated. Very shortly, and this was mentioned on the 'Conspiracy Files' programme, NIST will produce its official report into how WTC7 collapsed and it is expected to tow the official line and state that fire caused it to fall.
Video showing possible foreknowledge of collapse and books by top fireman discussing the need to pull the building all muddy the waters for a story where the official account says otherwise. Just look at what NIST said in December in its pre-report report from here. No wonder conspiracies abound.
I think you are clutching at burning straws with this one. It is very obvious the reporter is not stood in front of a screen. Surely even you know in your heart that this isn't the case.
The url for this clip comes from the url given at the beginning of the video in question. This is 1GB of news footage from that day. I can give you a breakdown of the segments if you like for easy downloading.
You of course ask valid questions but I cannot understand how you can claim there to be an innocent explanation. The reporter is speaking about the collapse of the Salomon building which happens to be standing behind her still intact.
The problem here is that this suggests by reasonable assumption that forewarning was given of the collapse. Since buildings on fire don't usually collapse on cue (or completely) then consideration must be given to the idea that a controlled demolition had been planned. Regardless of whether you or I think a controlled demolition could have happened to hide something, capitalize on something or in a less sinister way to reduce the damage caused by a building on fire, the official story does not accept any demolition took place or that it was in any way premeditated. Very shortly, and this was mentioned on the 'Conspiracy Files' programme, NIST will produce its official report into how WTC7 collapsed and it is expected to tow the official line and state that fire caused it to fall.
Video showing possible foreknowledge of collapse and books by top fireman discussing the need to pull the building all muddy the waters for a story where the official account says otherwise. Just look at what NIST said in December in its pre-report report from here. No wonder conspiracies abound.