Its a 47 storey building. Surely they would investigate it again if there wasnt a report on it?
This is coming from me, a nobody in england.
Who the hell is running america?

FYI: The term "pull" doesn't have anything to do with explosives.

?? What are your sources that it does not have anything to do with a controlled take-down of a building? - moved to the WTC7 section

To maybe answer your question David. The government wants as little people as possible to know that a third building fell that day. The more that people know about wtc 7, the more questions are going to arise. And the more questions that arise, leads to the truth being uncovered faster. As for Nist, they probably were told to hold of on wtc7 or skip it entirely because talking about it would just raise more questions. It wasn't hit by a plane, it was hit by falling debre, etc, etc, fell at free fall speed. People allegedly heard a countdown to the building's collapse coming from the radio of a red cross worker. It's the largest smoking gun for this truth movement and the government doesn't want it acknowledged.

Awesome reply thanks!

Brent Blanchard: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%...209-8-06%20.pdf

The 3 'demolition experts' that shure made calls to a while ago ( don't have the link on hand I'm afraid ) who clarified that 'pulling' refers to bringing a structure down with cabling, and that you would never 'pull' a building also wired with explosives.

The only examples of this term cited are either misquoted (using cables to pull down building 6) or simply the dictionary definition of 'pull' (to pull a structure away from another structure). A real demolition term is 'shoot', the differences should be immediately apparent.

Why do those photos start with 0 seconds, when the collapse had been in progress for several seconds before?

Yes, "pulling" is technically a reference to cable pulling down of a building's remains.

Cables were definitely used to pull down one of the WTC buildings, I guess it was No.6, as part of the clean up.

"pulling" is also a loosely used term to describe "bringing a building down by artificial means!"

It's a "gray area" word and as such is seized upon by Truth deniers as not being a term used in the controlled demolition industry.

There are many transition-type words in a living language like English.

There was a gray period when the word "gay" for instance swung between it's old non-controversial joyful meaning and it's more popular current meaning of representing a homosexual disposition.

Anyway this is all very nice but as much as disingenuous skeptics love "pulling things", it's of little importance when we examine all the supporting evidence that WTC7 did not fall down as an act of God... or with cables.

We've seen the multi-angle controlled demolition videos of WTC7.

We've heard the top European controlled demolition expert, Danny Jowenko solidly re-confirm his staunch belief that WTC7 was undoubtedly a controlled demolition.

We've seen the video testimony of the guy who heard the countdown prior to the WTC 7 controlled demlition.

We've read the testimony of an eyewitness and his colleague who were inside the WTC7 when a large explosion took out the stairwell leaving him hanging prior to the collapse of WTC2 (South Tower).

I could go on and on and on.

A jury convicts people on reasonable doubt.

Well we aren't a jury and this isn't a courtroom.

All we are arguing is that there is reasonable enough doubt to justify a proper investigation! and I'm tired of hypocrites that nitpick instead of conceding this point!

MM

The collapse of the penthouse is NOT the 'building' collapsing.

The 'building' is collapsing when all of the building is falling.

Those who wish to confuse the issue play word games.

If you wish to nit pick, the screenwall, the west penthouse, the west and east walls [which are connected to the south wall], and the north wall, fell in about 7 seconds.

Free fall is about 6 seconds.

Columns 79, 80 and 81 failed at about the same time.

About 7 seconds later, the other 21 interior columns and the 57 exterior columns all failed within 1 about second of each other.

That, my friend, is a professional building implosion.

Oh really? It wasn't part of the building?


That's a massive structure, and it spent some 7 seconds falling into the building before global collapse. And why? Did the CD go badly wrong?
What damage was the E Penthouse doing for those several seconds? Was the damage travelling laterally or just straight down?

By what definition of "falling" ? Sounds like you just made up your own definition to suit your own purpose.

And? What figure do you propose as reasonable for a catastrophically damaged 47-storey building once collapse begins?

Please show your maths.

Incidentally, the W Penthouse begins its fall before the N wall begins to fall, and can be seen to be falling quicker.

Quite possibly.

You have no idea what was happening to the exterior on the South.
You have no idea which core columns were also damaged or destroyed by the falling E Penthouse. Assuming columns 79,80,81 failed at a low level, how much lateral damage is propagated while the vertical structure is failing to allow the collapse of the Penthouse some time later?

Far from professional. 3 columns to the East inexplicably CD'd 7 seconds early? By your own account it's a monumentally screwed-up CD.

And all along, the FDNY were predicting it would fall. Was that just a lucky guess, or are you suggesting they were "in on it" ??

And so another one of the perpetrators of 9/11 speaks out.

People keep asking who did it, well they make their presence known all the time.

gwb_223 may not have been involved directly but he now works actively in the defense of those who did.

I know that's a heavy duty accusation but I feel that way about anyone who continually ignores mounting evidence as to reasonable doubt and continues to promote a single-minded pro-Official Conspiracy Theory point of view.

gwb_223 sitting at home in England has no idea either (other than what he chooses to believe), what happened to the exterior of the south side of WTC7.

He simply comes here rehashing the same old 'tired' arguments while studiously ignoring all the major points that contradict his beliefs.

Yes some members of the FDNY claimed WTC7 was a regular towering inferno totally involved by unfought fires, while other members of the NYFD make statements that disagree.

We've all seen the videos, did WTC7 look like a building totally involved by fire when it collapsed?

Did it exude compressed air created bellows-like projected flames during it's collapse like we observed in WTC1 and WTC2?

Are those who experienced first hand a lower floor major explosion that cut them off from descending a stairwell lying?

Is the eyewitness report of hearing a countdown to the WTC7 demolition also a lie?

Is a professional demolition expert's emphatic insistence that WTC7 was a controlled demolition also a lie?

NO.

How much more proof of his complicity do you need?

MM

Resources are finite so intial investigation focused on the towers where people died.

FEMA report of 2002 covers 7 World Trade Center NIST report on 7 World Trade Center due out early 2008.

No shit. Check the sig

????????????

In what state of delusions are you living?

If they had spend as much on the 9/11 investigation like they had on a blow-job, then I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been out of the realm of possibility to conduct an investigation on 7 at the same time like 1 and 2.

Wo ein Wille ist, ist auch ein Weg! (and the war started against Iraq proves this at best)


It seems that people like you will EVER find an apology for government failures and lies.


At least, with your embedded mind you have a lot of career opportunities, so get in contact: foxnewsonline@foxnews.com

"Perpetrator" :

The perpetrator is the robber, assailant, counterfeiter, etc.--the person who actually committed the crime.

Wow. Have you gone bat-sh#t crazy?

As far as I know, helping to obscure a crime is also a crime.

Not to saying that you're guilty of that, but I think that's the way MM meant it.

Not that you're in anyway connected to the perpetrators, but presuming that 7 was demolished, then you're enduring insisting that it wasn't, plays in advantage for the perpetrators, and therefore contributing obscuring their committed crime.

That would be quite independent from your motive, it's about objective effect.

Again, I don't make this accusation, but that's how I understand the accusation MM made.

And if your motives are quite sincere and your heart is on the right place, and if some day it will be confessed that Building 7 was blown, then you will be quite ashamed for (unintentionally) helping obscuring their crimes.

But maybe you won't even if one day confessed, because you'll then just follow their spin: we had to blow 7, because it was in danger of collapse and damaging other buildings, and there were a lot of documents in it regarding national security, we could not risk to get in false hands so we thought, perhaps the smartest thing is to pull it.....


Even with an army of internet 'debunkers' on the hand, it won't be stopped that more and more people will recognize the death of Building 7 as that, what it was: a demolition.

And then, the only way for the perpetrators out, would be the spin I just mentioned.

But in anticipating their spin, it will lose more and more of its persuasiveness and people won't follow their spin but instead ask: When it was possible for them to bring this building down in secret with explosives, then why not the Twins?

Good question - we will see.

In that sense all 9/11 truthers are "perpetrators" of the 9/11 crime, in that they deflect attention from the real perps i.e. a bunch of Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists (from my point of view, of course).

Which is a ridiculous accusation, naturally. Just as ridiculous as labelling 9/11 sceptics "perpetrators".

Get real. This is just an internet forum. Nobody here is shredding evidence or having MiB hiding in their garage.

How about if I won't call you guys "defenders of terrorism" and you'll return the compliment?

best

gwb

Money is not the only issue. You need people with a certian skill set. The number of such people is limited. Throwing money at that problem will not have much effect.

In general regarding 9/11, from your point of view you're right.

But regarding Building 7, 9/11 scpetics (aka truthers) couldn't deflect attention from the real perps, as debris damage and fire could only be considered to be the cause of the collapse, and not to be perpetrators (see your definition).

To make that sure, I don't consider you or anyone from JREF to be perpetrator or to be connected to them.

I only wanted to point out what I think MM meant with labelling you so, that's not that I share this labelling.

And btw., you are not a 9/11 sceptic! You believe the official version and are only sceptic about those, who don't.

You are 9/11-affirmative. Or a 9/11-sceptic-sceptic.

Get real. This is just an internet forum connected to the most-seen movie disputing the official version. So people make their mind also out of the things they read here.

If not, then why would you post here?

Before we exchange compliments and fall in love, just call me NK-44. B)

And your state of delusion continues.

First, in general, in a capitalist society, what could cause more effects than throwing money in?

Second, limited number? Have you evidence that out of the more than 1 Million US-American (and maybe you don't know, even in other countries some exists) engineers, no one was able to do the job of those NIST hired?

Please provide or stop making this ludicrous statements.

Administration apologists avidly avoid any anomalies adversely altering assumed affirmations and acrimoniously assail any adversary advising against accepting administration assertions.

And another alliteration asshole :P :lol:

And they are investiating it why?

It would seem as though they would simply refuse to investigate it if they didn't want anybody to know but a report is due out this Spring, is it not?

Bothered By Bullshit?
Concerned by cornball commentators?
Dwarfed by decisions dictated downstream by dominating dimwits?
Etcetra, Etcetra.

I know I am.

There are plenty of questions to ask about 9/11. Magic Passports, the Pentagon Tapes that aren't released (PS: We The People own the Pentagon), why nobody was fired, demoted, or imprisoned for the bungled response or missing the signs prior to the attack. What brought down WTC 7 isn't one of them. When you are missing 18 floors of a building at it's corner...a building that is on fire...the building is not long for the Earth.

What words are used to describe the act of initiating a controlled demolition?

http://www.pitt.edu/~bdobler/discovery/implosion.html

America's First Family of Demolition

In 1957, Jack Loizeaux, now 81 and retired, was the first person in the U.S. To "implode" buildings in dense urban settings. J. Mark and Douglas K. Loizeaux, who co-authored an article, "Demolition by Implosion," in the October 1995 issue of Scientific American, describe the process of preparing a building for its five-second takedown as a process of carefully removing all non-essential (non load-bearing) materials, scanning blueprints, taking samples of concrete to determine its actual strength (or weakness!) -- and even, in some cases, re-building parts of the structure in order to properly pull it down.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030903160210/...demolition.html



A-Z of Engineering

Demolition & Decommissioning

Demolition means to pull down, or to destroy or break something

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

Interview with Stacey Loizeaux

Stacey Loizeaux, twenty-six years old, has worked for Controlled Demolition, an international explosives engineering firm, since the age of fifteen. She learned the fine art of demolition from her father, Mark Loizeaux, and her uncle, Doug Loizeaux -- president and vice-president of the company. NOVA spoke with Ms. Loizeaux a few days before Christmas, 1996.

NOVA: A common misconception is that you blow buildings up. That's not really the case, is it?

Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.

NOVA: I understand that you try to use the smallest amount of explosives possible.

SL: Right.

NOVA: Can you explain why?

SL: Well, the explosives are really just the catalyst. Largely what we use is gravity. And we're dealing with Class A explosives that are embedded into concrete -- and that concrete flies. So, let's say your explosive is 17,000 feet per second -- you've got a piece of concrete moving at that speed when you remove it from the structure. So we try to use the minimal amount to keep down the fly of debris for a safe operation. Other than that, it comes down to cost effectiveness. You know, the more holes you have to drill, it's more labor, more time, and it's more expensive. So, obviously, the smallest amount of work is best.

NOVA: What kind of analysis goes into figuring out how to demolish a building?

SL: Well, we've got what we refer to as our historic database, which is largely in my father and my uncle's brain. Ninety-five percent of our knowledge has come from hands-on experience -- learning, watching different structures, watching the way they move. A lot of times my father and my uncle will walk in a building and they'll say, "Oh, this is just like the such and such building. This is what we're going to do." So, there really isn't a class you can take. There's no book you can read that's going to teach you how to do this. It's really a practical physical understanding of how buildings work. You know, just because an engineer designed a building to work one way, it doesn't mean that, when they built it, that that's actually how it's working. We have to go in and decide what is load bearing, what is not -- what is safe to remove, what isn't. So there's quite a bit of in-the-field analysis that goes on.

NOVA: Do you tend to look at blueprints?

SL: Well, 90 percent of the time we don't have them. A lot of times those plans have been misplaced or have disintegrated into dust. But when we do have them, yeah, we use them but we don't rely on them. There's a difference between 'as drawn' and 'as built'. And you never trust the drawings. That's why we do test shots, which is going in and picking out a few key columns and actually loading them with explosives and shooting them ahead of time, to understand the loads within the columns.

NOVA: Can you describe the prep work that goes into dropping a building.

SL: Well, it depends on the structure, obviously. We've had chimneys prepared in half a day and we've had buildings that take three months. Generally we don't do the preparation work. We are usually an implosion subcontractor, meaning that there is a main demolition contractor on site, who's been contracted by the property owner or the developer, and they then subcontract the implosion to us. We will then ask them to perform preparatory operations, including non-load bearing partition removal -- meaning, the dry wall that separates the rooms. It's not carrying the weight of the building. It's just there as a divider. But what happens -- you know, if you have a case of beer -- all the little cardboard reinforcements inside? If you have all those little cardboard reinforcements, then you can jump up and down on the case. But if you take them out, the case will crush under your weight. Those little partitions actually add up and act as stiffeners. So that's one of the first things we strip out. The second thing we do is drilling. Depending on the height of the structure, we'll work on a couple of different floors -- usually anywhere from two to six. The taller the building, the higher up we work. We only really need to work on the first two floors, because -- you can make the building come down that way. But we work on several upper floors to help fragment debris for the contractor, so all the debris ends up in small, manageable pieces. Other preparatory operations are covering -- wrapping the columns with chain link fence and then in geotextile fabric, which is very puncture resistant and has a very high tensile strength. It allows the concrete to move, but it keeps the concrete from flying. The chain link catches the bigger material and the fabric catches the smaller material from flying up and out. We also sometimes put up a curtain around the entire floor, to catch the stuff that gets through these first two layers. That's really where your liability is.

NOVA: Why do the explosive charges go off at intervals rather than all at once?

SL: Well, if I kick both your legs out from under you, you're going to fall right on your butt. If I kick one leg out from under you, you'll fall left or right. So the way we control the failure of the building is by using the delays. And, again, that varies structure to structure and depending on where we want the building to go. A lot of people, when they see a building implosion, expect it to go into its own basement, which is not always what the contractor wants. Sometimes the contractor wants to lay the building out like a tree. And, sometime, we need to bring down buildings that are actually touching other buildings.

NOVA: How do you do that?

SL: Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done.

NOVA: What are some of the factors that make certain buildings harder to bring down than others?

SL: Reinforcing is a big part of it. We just took down a building in Vegas -- the Sands Hotel. And it was one of the first high rises along the strip proper. When we went in and started removing some concrete, we said, "Holy Cow, what the heck were they building?" I mean, the way it was built, they could have put another 15 stories on top of this thing. Our theory was that it was originally Mafioso owned, and probably the poor engineer was so terrified of it ever falling down that he just reinforced the heck out of it!

NOVA: I understand your demolition of the Landmark Hotel served as a backdrop for the movie, "Mars Attack." Do you do a lot of movie work?

SL: Yeah, we do quite a bit of movie work. It's funny you asked me that, because I was just rooting around in my attic for Christmas decorations and I found a picture of me with Mel Gibson, when we were shooting "Lethal Weapon 3." I thought, oh God, I've got to take this back downstairs so everyone can see it! (laughs) We've worked on "Lethal Weapon 3", we've worked on "Demolition Man." We worked on some older films, "Telephone" with Charles Bronson.

NOVA: Do these tend to be building you're demolishing anyway?

SL: Well, it depends. We've had jobs where we've already got the contract to bring a building down and Warner Brothers or whoever comes on site and says, "Hey, can we film that?" But we've also had jobs where the studio actually finds the job for us and says, "Here, blow this up." It's been very fruitful for us but, you know, Hollywood is so accustomed to make believe, it's sometimes hard to explain, "Hey, guys, this is not pretend. This is the real McCoy and you've got to follow our direction."

NOVA: What do you look for in an explosive?

SL: Velocity. You have two different types of explosives. You have low order and high order. A low order explosive is like what they used when they bombed the Oklahoma City building -- that's ANFO, ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. It's a very slow, heaving explosion. It tends to push more than it does shatter. The explosive we look for is a shattering explosive. What we want to do is instantaneously remove the integrity of the columns or whatever we're working on. That's what we look for in nitroglycerin or NG-based dynamite. With a steel building, we use something called a linear shaped charge. It's the same explosive they use to sever the fuel tank off the Space Shuttle, when they launch.

NOVA: Have you done any underwater work?

SL: Yeah, we've done quite a bit of underwater work. I actually lived in St. Petersburg, Florida for 8 months removing underwater concrete piers that were part of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, a five mile bridge. Underwater work is interesting because, obviously, you're coordinating with divers. None of us are divers. We hire a diving team and, you know, we give them instruction.

NOVA: When you're underwater, how do you spark an explosive?

SL: You don't. There are very few explosives that are spark sensitive anymore. Most are shock sensitive or compression sensitive.

NOVA: What can go wrong on a job? What do you have to watch for?

SL: Our biggest problem, when we come right down to the wire with shooting buildings, is ground control. That is the hardest thing. For some reason people think that they can stand right next to a building coming down and that they're going to be OK. We've pulled people out of manholes that were 15 feet from the building, pulled people out of trees right next to the building. And people will make great efforts to camouflage themselves. We've had guys dress up as bushes, you know, blacken their faces and try to get the best camera angle. It's unbelievable.

NOVA: How does someone become a demolition expert?

SL: Know somebody. (laughs) Really, most of the people in the business -- in fact all of the ones that I know, are either family or friends. At one point in time, we had a chef, a gym teacher, a carpenter. I mean none of these people were ever trained in demolition. It's easier to start from scratch with someone, just hands-on training.

NOVA: I understand that Controlled Demolition was hired to bring down the remains of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Were you out there for that?

SL: That was a little too much for me, emotionally. I asked not to go on that job. My father and my uncle went out.

NOVA: How did they describe it?

SL: Well, any time you have a damaged structure it's a totally different animal. I mean it is much harder for us to bring down a structure that's already damaged, because you no longer know how the forces are working. In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building. When my father got to the site, there was a man very gingerly trying to dig debris off the building to uncover bodies. And my father said, "Stop. If you move that pile one more foot the whole building is going to come down." And so we worked closely with the fire and rescue teams. The whole building was basically full of, you know, classified information. So we actually had a contract with them to remove any classified materials from the building that we could locate -- thousands and thousands of pieces of paper. But, it was just very heart wrenching, you know, because they were still recovering bodies right up until days before we actually brought down the building. My uncle and my father worked quite a bit in Mexico City in '85 following the earthquake and they had helped pull bodies out there. So, it's not like it's ever old hat, but they'd been there before.

NOVA: Are there any more Loizeaux kids getting ready to join the family business?

SL: Oh yeah. There's me, and then I have a 19-year old sister who also works for the company, Adrienne. And then the twins, 15, a boy and a girl, Jason and Devon. And they both come out and work on some jobs, but you know, they're still 15.

NOVA: Do you get a thrill watching a building fall?

SL: Oh sure. I mean you really don't ever lose it. Your perspective changes. When I first started traveling with my Dad at fifteen, sixteen years old, I used to be awestruck. But you sort of go from that awestruck feeling to where you understand how the structure is coming down and you're watching for certain things -- counting the delays or waiting for a part of the building to kick out or waiting for it to pull forward. So it does change, but it's always a rush. (Note the frequency of her use of the word "pull" when describing the demolition process.)