Is it true that the WTC-7 was collapsed on orders from the owner?

Question

Was there a decision made to collapse the WTC 7 tower?

He's got you there pantygruel.

jandrkeller----what of this?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html

and this quote from WTC owner Silverstein:

"Silverstein’s actual quote: “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to 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.”"

Thanks Clay----we now have 2 completely different sides of the story...the one put out by the government and the one put out by outside experts.

Intriguing :-)

Michael---again there seem to be differing accounts of the state of the building:

"It is commonly believed that "ancillary damage" from the collapses of the Twin Towers led to the collapse of WTC 7. In fact Building 7 was separated from the North Tower by Building 6 and Vesey Street. A photograph of its north facade taken in the afternoon shows isolated small fires, and not even a single window was broken."

Also, the link you gave spoke of WTC 7 only from hypothetical viewpoints as well.

If the NIST is part of the gov't, their explanations can be taken with a grain of salt anyways. It would be like trusting Al Capone's lawyers to be honest.

I appreciate your answer though and have added it to my overall thoughts......I'm also looking to piece together a cumulative work regarding government and eyewitness discrepencies so your link will be very helpful along those lines as well.

Could you pare down your list of sources to include only WTC 7 since that's what we're talking about?

Also, where did all of these sources get their data from, the gov't? It's obvious they didn't all witness the event.

NYG---That's it?

Michael---yeah watch the conspiracy nut thing.....gov't sheep :-)....actually I just had one of my answers ruled in violation just because I called the question "inane".......somebody was pretty insecure!

Answer 1

Your statement or rather quote of Silverstein is accurate. The publication "Fire Engineers" and the National Institute of Science and Technology do not support that fire brought down building #7! Building #7 was not hit by any airplanes nor severely damaged by the collapse of WTC I or II. By all accounts from NYPD, Fireman, civilians and emergency personnel, building #7 was not HOT nor in danger of collapse. As for the thesis that kerosene fuel caused the collapse. Hogwash! HYDROCARBONS CANNOT MELT STEEL! There was very little fire respective to building #7. On top of that, building #7 had the thickest steel of all the buildings in the World Trade complex. Demolition experts all concur that the collapse is indicative of a controlled demolition. Just before the collapse you can see the KINK in the top middle of the roof, again indicative of a controlled demolition. Also, you can see the SQUIBS shooting out the sides of building #7, again indicative of a controlled demolition. In David Ray Griffin's book Debunking 9/11 Debunking are these comments by experts in structural engineering;

"Two professors of structural engineering at Switzerland's most prestigious university, the ETH Swiss Federal Institute of Technololgy in Zurich, have also expressed this conclusion. Professor emiritus Hugo Bachmann has said: 'In my opinion WTC 7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts.' Jorg Schneider has said: 'WTC 7 was with the highest probability brought down by explosives.'" Page 200-201.


Those who refuse to acknowledge these facts are just plain being obtuse and..., well I'll leave it for you to decide.

*Addendums: Regarding Michael's comment about "maneuvering heavy equipment to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement" as quoted by demolition expert Brett Blanchard: This explanation is outlandish regarding Silverstein's intention when he used the term "to pull it."

1) He (Silverstein) meant pulling out firefighters in a subsequent interview. This is ridiculous because there were no firefighters to pull out! There hadn't been for several hours!

2) If he meant "pulling over the building" this is equally outlandish?! Are we to believe that Silverstein ordered the maneuvering of heavy equipment to pull over building #7, when the whole area was enshrouded in debris and in the midst of chaos that day?!

3) There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any heavy equipment was used, in any capacity to pull down building #7 that day!

The Presupposition that fire and heavy damage brought down building #7 in a SYMETRIC, FREE FALL EVENT has no forensic basis. Only demolitions guarantee that buildings will fall into their own footprints at nearly the rate of freefall. Moreover, the collapse of building #7 violates the one-third, two-thirds rule of collapsing structures. That is to say, if building # 7 did indeed collapse due to the reasons Michael has given then a third of the building would have remained standing after the collapse. Lastly, there is absolutely no photographic, nor forensic evidence that the steel was compromised by intense wide-spread fires!

In terms of melting steel, there are many eyewitness accounts as much as five months after 9/11 that pools of melted steel was seen at the site. Where we do agree is that fires did not melt the steel. Dr. Steven Jones (physicist) believes other agents were involved in the melting of the steel, agents used in the demolition process of the building. Regarding the San Francisco bridge collapse, if one were to look closely they would see that the bridge did not completely collapse nor did it collapse symetrically into its own footprint. Additionally, there are many instances of partial bridge collapses, yet there are no instances of complete symetrical collapses of steel structured buildings due to fire.

PLEASE LIST THE THOUSANDS OF EXPERTS WHO THINK THE PLANES BROUGHT DOWN THE BUILDINGS..., AND I WANT THOUSANDS!!!!!!

Michael, you are obscuring the argument by including information and websites that examine WTC I & II! I have stayed only within the context of the collapse of Building #7! This is a classic "strawman" tactic to confuse a specific argument. If all the sources are accurate as you have listed, then why didn't the 9/11 commission address the collapse of building #7? This would have gone a long way in putting to rest the demolition debate concerning building #7. I will type verbatim from Steven Jones book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" passages from the 9/11 commission:

Hamilton revealed himself to be even more ignorant in relation to WTC 7. Solomon asked: "[W]hy didn't the Commission deal with the collapse of Building 7, which some call the smoking gun?" Hamilton replied: "Well, of course, we did deal with it."
This is amazing. One of the main criticisms of the Commission's report has been its failure even to mention the collapse of this building. In my critique of the report, for example, I wrote:

"The Commission avoids another embarrassing problem--explaining how WTC 7 could have collapsed, also at virtually free-fall speed--by simply not mentioning the collapse of this building. Building 7 of the WTC was 47 stories high, so it would have been considered a giant skyscraper if it had been anywhere other than next to the 110-story Twin Towers. But the collapse of such a huge building was not even considered worthy of comment by the Commission."

If Hamilton had regarded the Commission as a truth-seeking body, and if he hoped that its report was devoid of "factual errors," he surely would have been motivated to read some critiques of it. Had he done so, he could hardly have avoided coming across passages such as this. And yet he evidently believed that the Commission's report had discussed the collapse of WTC 7. Solomon later came back to the question, during which the following exchange occurred:

Solomon: You said that the Commission Report did mention World Trade Center Building 7 in it....It did mention it or it didn't?

Hamilton: The Commission reviewed the question of Building 7 collapse. I don't know specifically if it's in the Report, I can't recall that it is, but it, uh....

Solomon: I don't think it was in the report.

Hamilton: OK, then I'll accept your word for that.

Solomon: There was a decision not to put it in the report?

Hamilton: I do not recall that was a specific discussion in the Commission and we rejected the idea of putting Building 7 in, I don't recall that. So I presume that the report was written without reference to Building 7 at all, because all the attention...was on the Trade tower buildings.

Michael, please keep your attention on Building #7. Please do not make the same mistake that Hamilton implies. With all your sources below, wouldn't you think that the Commission's argument would have been better supported by addressing them instead of ignoring them as it pertains to Building #7.
------Pages 140-141, Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

Michael, please in the future if you would be so respectful, refrain from calling people "conspiracy nuts." Ad Hominem attacks is not befitting scholarly research!

Michael, the "upper case" letters are for emphasis, not for degradation. I only did this for posterity's sake. Many people will visit this question in the future, by having the letters stand out will reinforce my point. Thankyou for admitting that ad hominem attacks such as calling people "conspiracy nuts" is detrimental for getting at the truth. I appreciate that.

Answer 2

Why is the simplest explanation never the simplest one to accept? To what purpose? Oil we do not own today? War that could have been started with another "Bay of Tomkin" incident? Why also destroy the Pentagon when the WTC would have sufficed? The one major flaw in the plot point of the "conspiracy" is it's complexity; too many "facts" must be accepted for it to be "true"! That anyone can deny the reality that 19 hijackers caused the events of September 11th and to believe our government, so evil and corrupt, perpetrated this homicidal fraud on it's own is unconscionable. These "arguments" have been discussed before as have "conspiracies" related to the moon landing, Pearl Harbor, the Lusitania, and the Maine. However, I will point out two easy facts: the Windsor did not have two 110-story towers falling all around it and you can burn a hole in a Coke can with a match.

Answer 3

wtc 7 collapsed in itself on september 11, 2001 at 05.20 p.m. and no it was not done on the owner's order.

there were NO casualties in the building - please do not use this forum to appear like someone you are not. NOBODY was lost there not even some idiots sister who is looking to gain sympathy

P.S. please read this and disregard all these conspiracy mongers

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

maybe this will clear it up.

Answer 4

A good friend of mine lost his sister in #7. she was there becuase she was told the bldg was safe ! it really doesn't matter what happened to #7, only what was THE ROLE OF OUR GOVT, IN THE WHOLE TRAGEDY ! THEY KNEW AND DID NOTHING TO STOP IT !

Answer 5

To answer your specific question, the phrase "pull it" was used on 9/11, but it does not mean "to pull down the building". The phase "pull it" has oftened been misquoted by 9-11 conspiracy theorists. Demolition expert Brett Blanchard, from implosionworld.com explains:

"We have never once heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement."
---------------
NIST definitely says that fire brought down WTC7. I quote,
"An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet; "
This is from
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
(Section 14)
---
In terms of "melting steel," there is no claim that the fires melted steel. Rather, the heat of the fire caused the steel to lose 90% of its structural strength. That's why all steel-frame buildings in the world are fire proofed by coating the steel with plaster. This is standard civil engineering. That's also why that bridge collapse recently after the truck crashed.
---
If expert opinion sways you, then essentially all experts in the world agree the planes brought down the WTC towers. Two people from Switzerland does not stand up against the 1000s of of experts who think the planes did it. That's an overwhelming majority. Also, David Ray Griffin is a retired professor of philosophy and his opinions can be safely assumed to be irrelevent.
---
I think the ASCE should encompass 1000s of engineers. Here a partial list: ==> Virtually all the experts in the world have come out against the 9-11 conspiracy nuts. Just look at this:

1. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), FEMA, and other agencies have issued a important report that kills the conspiracy theory arguments.
The FEMA report is at http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/mat_fema403.shtm
The ASCE report is at http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1057
It’s useful to see the investigation team & their credentials at: http://www.asce.org/responds/wtc_team.cfm

2. Scientific American has come out against a 9-11 conspiracy. See
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000

3. Popular Mechanics published a huge article attacking the conspiracy nuts using over 300 renowned experts in http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology has come out against the theory. See http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/ This is a massive analysis that destroys the conspiracy theory.
So did Purdue (http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html), and others

5. NIST and FEMA both support the standard explanation of the WTC collapse. Yes, these are government agencies, but they are manned by scientists and others who can think and do whatever they see as correct. Unless, that is, the 9-11 conspiracy theorists are accusing them of being accessories to murder. See
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/ and http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

6. Here’s an amazing article by the Senior Editor of Implosion World and by Protec, “one of the world’s most knowledge independent authorities on explosive demolition.” Protec was on-site when WTC collapsed and had sensitive seismography equipment set up the time. Their article is devastating analysis against an “inside job”. See: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

7. The “intellectual leader” of the 9-11 conspiracy nuts may be Steven E. Jones, from BYU (Brigham Young University). However, Jones has been heavily criticized by his own colleagues at BYU. D. Allan Firmage, Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU, called Jones’ statements “very disturbing.” Also, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology [at BYU] do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
See http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm to see how Jones was ripped apart by his own University.

Also include the engineers in the following:

Engineers Explain WTC Collapse
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0529/news_3-1.html
Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/040119.asp
IT WAS THE FIRE, CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE - icivilengineer.com
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html
Simulation for the collapse of WTC after aeroplane impact - Lu XZ., Yang N., Jiang JJ. Structure Engineer, 66(sup.). 2003, 18-22
Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
Glover, N.J.
"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.
Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.
Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)
Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.
Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.
"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
The Towers Lost and Beyond
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Eduardo Kausel, John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Meg Hendry-Brogan, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm, Yossi Sheffi
---
Whether this is 100s or thouands doesn't matter. Essentially, real experts are against it. You can't deny it. The above is a list of published articles, many in peer-reviewed journals, all subject to review by other engineers. The "experts" of the 9-11 conspiracy are published nowhere, come from people who don't even have a degree in engineering, have not been reviewed by others in press, and have no credibility. The 9-11 conspiracy "experts" don't have one single article published because it's junk science.
---
One more point. Technical arguments from laymen are irrelevent (symmetry & all that). The experts diagree, completely. So we have the engineers of the ASCE saying it was the planes, and we have Prof Jones (an expert in "cold fusion" but completely unpublished in the engineering literature) saying the opposite. Who do you think is correct? The "cold fusion" expert or the people at MIT, ASCE, Scientific American, all the people cited in the articles, etc.
---
You're absolutely right, I should not have used the term "conspiracy nuts" & I apologize to all who were offended. The discussion should be completely academic. By the same token, I ask you to not use capitals as if you're yelling at me. That's probably what started it.
I did not intend to drift into Towers 1 & 2; rather the articles show the large support among engineers for the conventional explanation. Whether for Tower1/2, or 7, my point is still valid.

Answer 6

No, that is incorrect, again, no! from where does this foolishness start?

Answer 7

i never heard that