Was WTC7 a Controlled Demolition? New Article in the Simon (Los Angeles)

Was WTC7 a Controlled Demolition?
By Matt Hutaff, Sep 18, 2007

When a reporter hears a building fall 23 minutes before it does, is there a sound?

The view from BBC reporter Jane Standley's window was a spectacular mess. Thick plumes of smoke rose above the New York City skyline, blotting out sunlight and choking the morale of rescue workers trying to salvage human life from the wreckage of the just-collapsed World Trade Center.

It was the afternoon of September 11, 2001, and Standley was responding to questions posed by colleagues in England. "New York very much a city still in chaos," she said. "The phones are not working properly, the subway lines are not working properly, and we know that down there near the World Trade Center there are three schoools that are being turned into triage centres for emergency treatment."

"Jane, what more can you tell us about the Salomon Brothers Building and its collapse?" the desk anchor inquired. "You might have heard a few moments ago that I was talking about the Saloman Brothers building collapsing, and indeed it has. Apparently that's only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center towers were, and it seems this was not a result of a new attack, it was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks."

Chyrons agreed, filling the lower-third of the screen with a disturbing epitaph: "47 storey Salomon Brothers Building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed."

There was only one slight problem. The Salomon Brothers Building – also known as World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) – hadn't collapsed... and wouldn't for another 23 minutes.

Regardless of the conspiracies I've reported over the years, I'd honestly like to think a bunch of wingnuts declared war against American decadence on September 11. It certainly makes life easier, and it reduces the number of people looking at me like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat.

As many Americans have come to realize, however, we aren't being told the full story. There are gaping holes in credibility and logic, and accounts of marginalization and secrecy between government agencies and investigators only fuel the fire. Let's face it: When the Transportation Secretary goes on record as saying Vice President Dick Cheney allowed Flight 77 to crash into the Pentagon, questions are raised.

Thermite charges. Doomsday planes. The melting point of steel. USAF stand downs. Box cutters. 9/11 is almost too big to fit into one box; there are too many threads of debate, too much argument over what is true and what isn't. There are any number of talking points about the World Trade Center that enrage opinion on both sides of the aisle, and I think it diverts us all from the main question: Was there foreknowledge of what happened? If so, who was responsible and why was nothing done?

Let's reduce the argument to something simple: How did news agencies know WTC7 would collapse a half-hour before it did? Evidence suggests controlled demolition of the building, and if that hypothesis withstands scrutiny, the implications are far-reaching. Planning to demolish a skyscraper isn't something you do the morning of.

There are first-hand accounts of responders hearing orders to demolish WTC7, including the countdown. The process in which the building fell – straight down into its footprint – is consistent with controlled demolition, not fire. Even World Trade Center complex controller Larry Silverstein stated in PBS' America Rebuilds documentary that the word to "pull" the building was given well before there was any indication the building was in danger of falling over. Neither before nor since that has a building with that structural integrity and such little structural damage fallen. Why assume this one would?

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire," recalled Silverstein. "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."

(Silverstein has since revised his statement, claiming "it" referred to a contingent of firefighters in the building. There were none in WTC7 at the time.)

With many witnesses corroborating the decision to destroy World Trade Center 7, how does one explain the existence of a failsafe detonation device throughout the building? Firefighters obviously weren't running through burning offices planting precision charges while madness consumed the neighborhood around them. The charges would have to have been placed there beforehand, which, when you think about it, is a mighty stupid thing to do unless you already had designs to implode the building in the first place.

Maybe it's through this decisive pre-planning that the BBC came to know about the imminent death of the landmark office building? Who knows. But the official fate of WTC7 doesn't make sense, and having a news report come in prognosticating an unlikely future event doesn't make it any easier to swallow.

Was it simply an error in reporting, as BBC's Richard Potter claims? If so, that's one hell of an amazing mistake. The certainty of the dialogue contradicts his claims they were using half-baked adverbs to cover their errors, and it's not far-reaching to think word of the impending implosion reached a reporter's ears. What marks the BBC's footage as most compelling is that, while Jane Standley is remarking on the chaos 40 floors beneath her, the building her counterpart insists is rubble stands in the background. It gives the definite vibe of someone reading the script too soon – and Standley's feed being cut minutes later doesn't detract from that feeling one bit.

The demise of World Trade Center 7 isn't cause for much sadness; it paved the way for increased rescue efforts even as it destroyed offices for the FBI, DoD, IRS, SEC, and the Secret Service (no doubt making some high-profile criminals very happy). What it does do is raise the spectre of conspiracy for the rest of the events of that day. After all, if people overseeing that building knew there was going to be a massive terrorist attack against the Twin Towers, wouldn't we do all we could to stop it? And when one follow-up question is asked, it's a snowball effect that forces others to consider the way WTC1 and WTC2 fell, how our Air Force didn't defend us in our time of need, and how buildings designed to withstand a plane impact simply did not when the time came.

Questions like those start people wondering about those logic gaps. And soon they can no longer just blame a handful of wingnuts piloting their way into Heaven.

It is all too much to

It is all too much to swallow. There is absolutely no way that all the things that happened that day were the result of 19 young muslim men with box cutters. On a gut level, it just does not gel, it doesn't come together. That is unless you consider the possibility that there are other explanations contrary to the official ones.....

Great report Matt Hutaff...

Enjoyed reading that...

Many thanks and best wishes

Dear Matt Hutaff:

Thank you for your brief but well-written article about the mysterious collapse of Building 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

The gaping holes in the official story and the lack of attention given them by the media have constituted a mental torture chamber for those of us with overly-curious minds. I'm dying to know the truth of the matter(s) regarding all the events of that day. There are so many unanswered questions.

I would like to remind you of one detail that you failed to mention, however, that would have made your article even more interesting. That detail would be that very curious people, upon learning of the Jane Standley broadcast beginning 23 minutes too early, immediately contacted the BBC and requested that they release their tapes of Standley - because, if you recall, the broadcast (conveniently) faded out right as the building was about to collapse.

Well, of course, there had been a camera crew broadcasting and recording Standley at the time of Building 7's collapse. What was Standley's reaction as she witnessed Building 7 fall - the building that she thought had already fallen? Did she think it was yet another building? Did she realize her mistake 23 minutes too late and well into her broadcast already? Did she make inquiring comments? Was she stupefied? We will never know!

Because the BBC had a very rare "cock up" and lost the tapes somehow. Isn't that nice?

I remember reading an online discussion between newsroom employees talking about the BBC's lost Standley tapes. They were quite disbelieving that the BBC had lost them at all - as if such a thing is a regular occurrence. It is, in fact, highly irregular. News footage of important events is treated with great professional systematic diligence.

Of course, the public doesn't know that - so a "cock up" it is.

I Rated This Story only a 5 Because....

It like so many other articles and commentary on Building Seven fail to connect the dots so simply and clearly that a fool could understand them. The real Smoking Guns, which this article wasn't that good at pointing out are

a) IF #7 was a controlled implosion, THEN #1 and #2 were likely also professionalli imploded due to the presence of tons of molten metal under the ruins of all three structures.

b) If #7 had tons of molten iron underneathe its ruins, then this metal could NOT be airplane aluminum as this building was not hit by any airplane. This suggests that the tons of molten metal under #1 and #2 were also not likely aluminum, but more likely Iron as Prof Jones has pointed out for different sound reasons.

c) How did the BBC reporter KNOW this buiding would "collapse" and not fall to the side? How could anyone have predicted it would melt ***straight down***? If she misreported that it would fall before it did, that is no smoking gun. She could simply have been warned by the proper authorities on the scene of imminent building failure and misunderstood them to be refering to the past tense. But how could anyone have predicted a ***straight down*** fall, which is what "collapse" may imply. The fact that the BBC used this word implies that someone expected the building to behave the way no other building failure has ever behaved ever. This is the smoking gun in black and white.

I rated this story a five because it really fails to make this clear.

#1 and #2 WEREN'T

#1 and #2 WEREN'T _im_ploded; they were _ex_ploded...all over Manhattan.

That's one of the most obvious smoking guns for any thinking person who can actually be led (or leads him/herself) to sit down and look at a couple of photos of the towers' destruction in progress.

This photo from _Painful Questions_ is one of the great ones:


Now how'd those beams get all the way over there, and while we're at it, how'd the non-steel parts of the building get turned to dust?


If you're talking Bush and Cheney, you're talking Israel.

BBC's "War Party": a 49 Minute Documentary about the Neocons

I agree with you...

Exploded is the proper term to use in connection with Buildings 1 and 2.



"Was WTC7 a Controlled

"Was WTC7 a Controlled Demolition?"

Is the sky blue? Is water wet? Is Larry Silverstein a despicable human being and hardcore Zionist with shadowy links to Israeli organized crime with a vault full of blood money? Do otters eat on their backs?

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Silverstein Pull It Claim is Complete Bullshit

"Even World Trade Center complex controller Larry Silverstein stated in PBS' America Rebuilds documentary that the word to "pull" the building was given..."

Nonsense. This depends on the definition of "it." The claim makes no logical sense as presented.




"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull the firefighting operation.' And they made that decision to pull the firefighting operation and we watched the building collapse."


"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull the building.' And they made that decision to pull the building and we watched the building collapse."

"Silverstein has since revised his statement..."

That's a lie. He clarified what he meant, nothing more, nothing less. He didn't "revise" anything. You (and a lot of others) just refuse to accept the comment was taken out of context and exploited.

" claiming "it" referred to a contingent of firefighters in the building. There were none in WTC7 at the time.)"

Second lie: You don't know what "time" the call was made, because Silverstein didn't say.

Third lie: There were firefighters working on putting out the fire at WTC7, until they were ordered to give up (just as the conversation above implies).

It's so moronic that no one thinks about these claims, which don't make any sense as presented:

"Hello fire chief,"


"I think you guys should demolish my building with explosives instead of putting out the fire."

"What the fuck are you talking about?"

"Yeah, wire it up and pull it."

"Pull this, you fuckin' lunatic."

Every argument attempting to support the "pull the building" claim has an answer, and the claim is debunked and worthless as far as I'm concerned. I wish you people would use more brain power seeking out reliable unassaiable evidence.

Tales of 9/11 Truthiness

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Hi johndoraemi,

The Pull It comment reveals much IF we look at it as a POSSIBLE Freudian slip on Silverstein's part. Pulling a building has been defined by some as meaning when a building is physically pulled down to one side to collapse...using rope or cables, in order to aid its demolition. It does not refer to controlled implosion neccesarily. Therefore, did someone tell Silverstein that they needed to take the building down...but deceived him as to actually how they would accomplish it (ie preplanted bombs/incendiaries versus cables)? It is perfectly understandable that both Silverstein and the FDNY were lied to. Certainly there were demolitions professionals on the scene that day giving advice to all of the authorities present concerning building seven.

What if Silverstein was lied to but cannot discuss the truth of that day because it places him in danger of being accused of insurance fraud?

just closing the < b > tag

Not So Definite On The "Debunking"....

To be super objective here, I don't think that either point of view can be so easily views as conclusive in the Pro or Con.

The term "pull" is most definitely a term used in used in the demolition field. Notice I said used in the field, not necessarily to mean "take down with explosions. People say that this is a man who would have no idea of that term. That is highly speculative.

This is a Billionaire with numerous ventures in building code, planning, demolition knowledge by nature of his business itself, access to numerous experts of all types during his years as a Tycoon in property. Saying that the term "pull" would be foreign to him is disingenuous at the least.

As far as the word "it" goes, it is a strange choice of words if he meant a group of beings or people. Obviously it's a singular. "It" could definitely refer to the "operation" of firefighters, or the act of firefighting itself. But I wonder why the term "pull em" or "PULL THEM" didn't come naturally, but no big deal.

What is not logical is to think that this man slipped on recorded footage and never thought about what he said after, thusly demanding that the crew edit out his just realized confession.
Unless he had a total lapse of awareness and didn't notice till the film was aired, which is a stretch. But it could be Freudian, stranger things have happened. But the time line of the firefighters being taken out is not exactly down to a science with me.

I agree that the 911 Truth Movement has relied on his statements way too much, and it is NOT conclusive of any form of confession.

What IS CONCLUSIVE is foreknowledge by Jane Standley via BBC and it's production staff. She did not "get it wrong" or "get lucky". She predicted the exact building, in the almost exact manner, at almost the exact same time, just too early.

That STINKS of foreknowledge, and is a red flag on it's own, and even a "skeptic" would have to raise eyebrows at that without being totally in denial. Along with CNN's "prediction" to the same effect. Someone , somewhere that day, seemed to know something. I don't see the accidental early reporting as just coincidence, many others don't either. But that in itself is something you can neither prove or disprove using a mathematical equation.

As far as the dynamics of Buildings 7's demise, that is another story in itself. I myself question why NIST can't yet seem to "get a hold of this one" and why clear photos of the building 7 "gouge" are rare to find. Also is witness testimony by a new intimidated fearful man and others in that area. Along with the symmetric fall of Building 7(yes it fell perfectly into it's own footprint and aerial photographs confirm it), and the timing of it's collapse(approx. 6.1 seconds) I would have to say that this Building 7 issue is far from "debunked" and STINKS of coverup, or in the very least conflicts with a fire/damage scenario.

Silverstein's wording and the "pull it" comment is a weak basis for inside job., but the building itself, is one of the strongest.

I can only await further data on it.

Separate from the issue of

Separate from the issue of whether this is a good point to use as frequently as folks do (I never use it when talking about 9/11, for the record; I think it provokes endless rounds going nowhere):

But how does pulling a firefighting contingent cause the building to collapse? What is the cause and effect sequence here? The firefighters themselves said the building was "pulled" of firefighters before noon.

Frankly, #2 sounds pretty nutty, John. In it he would suggest that firefighters were battling the blazes all day, and when the building was poised for collapse, Larry said "Pull them out" -- and the building collapsed as though they had been holding it up on their brave shoulders.

He was either lying the first time by the ridiculous suggestions that he had any command or authority over the firefighters that day and that they were in fact in the building within a reasonable time of its collapse (and no "fire commander" has ever corroborated this telephone exchange, btw); OR he was telling the truth on the PBS piece about a decision to implode and then lying about what he meant afterward.

In my eye, it looks bad for the Larester either way. He can't reconcile #1 or #2 with any of the known facts. Instead of calling his statement a controlled demolition command, why don't we agree that he was never in a position to make any decision about that building under those circumstances, so whatever he was trying to say is nonsense?

I've always wondered

Did Silverstein have the authority to tell a fire commander that he thinks they should pull firefighters? Silverstein says it as if he had some "sway" over the fire team, but "THEY decided to pull it". So he advised a course of action, and they fulfilled his wishes?

That's odd. I thought if a firefighter thought that there was possible life or injured people still in that building, they would tell an old rich guy to go screw himself. I don't know what the law states. When a Building is on fire, does it become rightful to enter if there is possibility of endangered lives inside? Or can a property owner just say ,"Hey I think you guys should stop now, screw all the people that might be in there"?

I dunno guys, Larry seems to be a powerful and persuading type of fellow.

Exactly, Citizen. There is

Exactly, Citizen. There is no evidence that the building was so far gone as to warrant abandoning attempts to contain the fires. (They were spraying multiple hoses all over the place that afternoon.) At the very least, it rather smacks of insurance fraud -- or arson by proxy -- doesn't it?

So when a person says he meant pull FDNY

What do we say? Do we pass that over too? Because even THAT argument isn't logical. Yes, I'm ignorant of New York law when it comes to a property owner's say of who stays in and stays out. But I'm assuming that in a disaster where there is a private building involved, the Fire Departments wishes trump that of the owner's, especially if there is possible human life inside.

So this thought that he somehow had "sway" over the situation doesn't make sense.

Silverstein quote is contraproductive for 911truth

Even though I do find johndoeraemi's style a little combatant (I know there's a history to that), I basically agree with him that the Silverstein quote is worthless for 911truth, as it doesn't make any sense, and thus should be treated as cointel-straw-man-bait.
I have made that argument before (and more elaborately) and like johndoeraemi I also have some trouble understanding why so many people cannot see that this issue is contraproductive to 911truth.
It is true that Silverstein's remark is odd, and as such worthy of some thinking, but when that thinking has been completed, the issue should be discarded, and not used proactively as part of the 911truth agenda.
I wish people would stop using the Silverstein quote.
I agree with johndoeraemi that it is harmful to credibility.
I am aware that I am speaking against the consensus here, which saddens me, but that does not make it any less important to support the point.

The Silverstein comment is interesting but weak

I agree I don't think Silverstein's statement should be held up as any kind of evidence and is easily discounted.

Also, regarding the BBC report I, believe there were rumors that WTC7 was severely damaged had been evacuated and was in danger of collapsing. Not that I agree with that but I am playing devil's advocate. The error in reporting is easily explained.

I say stay focused on the solid evidence.

I watched Silverstein use the words controlled demolition

I know it won't help in court but for anyone out there doubting, I actually watched Larry Silverstein say "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a History Channel Show called History's Business on a Sunday morning in late 2002 or sometime in 2003.

I was not suspicious at the time and remember it very well as I could never understand Bldg. 7's complete collapse, from the time I heard about it on the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, as it was not hit by a plane and I thought even if there was damage it would have been an asymmetric fall of some sort. I just couldn't comprehend a 47 story building like that completely collapsing to the ground due to some fire and damage. The towers at least had the apearance of the fall of the upper stories collapsing the lower stories, and we quickly heard it was a dynamic load from Dr. Bazant et al. Bldg. 7 didn't have that situation so when Silverstein said that about Bldg. 7 I hit myself in the head and said to myself "Oh, that makes sense now".

It wasn't until early 2006 when I heard about and read Dr. Steve Jones' paper that I asked myself when there would have been time to set the charges in Bldg. 7. That is when I personally became suspicious of what happened in NYC on 911.

I believe this History Channel show is being suppressed as I called to get a copy of it when I realized in the last year how important it was. I was told that show is not available on VHS or DVD. Just about any other History Channel show I ever watched was available on VHS or DVD. I even e-mailed them saying I would like a video copy of it for a project my stepson was doing in school on the new Freedom Tower, which had been discussed on the show, to no avail.

The truth is that Bldg. 7 certainly was a controlled demolition, whether or not it was for safety reasons is not provable, although I personally doubt it. The problem for the official story is that the charges obviously had to be pre-positioned and ever since the Oral Histories were released and Dr. Jones' paper was published one thing led to another and questions were then asked about the towers. I believe the initial plan was just to admit Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition since there wasn't a good cover story for it. A problem occurred for this approach when Dr. Jones published his paper.

A problematic approach

'A problem occurred for this approach when Dr. Jones published his paper.'

But wasn't this approach a problem from the get-go? It indicated the building had been wired for demolition pre-9/11, thus inviting the question, 'Why?'

That is, if people are aware of what had been said. Silverstein could say what he did in the comfort of knowing that the major media would never pick up on it and call attention to it and raise questions. And as your own experience attests, these media can even be relied upon to cause potentially troublesome coverage to disappear and prevent its being accessed by curious members of the public. As usual, it was left to the 9/11 Truth movement to call attention to it (at least to the better known 'Frontline' remark), to which Professor Jones would soon start contributing his analyses. It wasn't that the explanation given by Silverstein on Frontline and on the History Channel didn't have problems from the outset--it's that these problems are of no consquence when the mass of people aren't aware of such remarks, let alone cognizant of their implications for the 9/11 official story.

It is all too true what you say

However, I believe there possibly was some consternation on how to handle the public concerning the collapse of Bldg. 7, as there was not a good cover story for its obvious demoilition, and that they just went ahead with the controlled demolition for safety reasons explanation, not really thinking about the possibility of the question of when the charges were placed being asked.

As you say, there was always the backup of keeping the admission hidden from the public. Additionally in the case of the History Channel, that show probably has a very low viewer rating as it is on early on Sunday mornings and its subject matter would be considered dry by many people.

It was a mistake though as if someone had a tape of it it would certainly matter now and they wouldn't be able to eliminate it.

Jakob, that is the shilliest remark I've seen in a long while!

Are you a Mossad agent or Silverstien's nephew, or both?

No, I am a genuine 911truther and activist in Denmark.

No, I am a genuine 911truther and activist in Denmark.

Like you, I also tend to be suspicious of people who have views opposing mine, but I try not to throw the shill accusation about too much, because that in itself is contraproductive to 911truth - it is the "poisoning the well" cointel effect.

I also try to recognize a coherent argument when I see one, and in my view, there certainly is a coherent argument for the view that Silversteins pullit quote is a very weak point, that is easily cherrypicked for debunking, and detracts credibility from other much stronger evidence that WTC7 was demolished.

Hi Jakob

If it's such a weak point, then why would the dorks over at at Popular Mechanics lie for Silverstein and say "Pull" isn't a controlled demolition term?

Popular Mechanics caught in a lie

"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

Popular Mechanics are hired to disrupt 911truth

To answer the question: I don't know why Popular Mechanics do what they do apart from their overall job to disrupt 911truth.

I also think that it has been empirically shown that the Silverstein Quote is widely cherrypicked to ridicule 911truth, and that this and many other reasons stand regardless of this specific PM missive.

I can venture a speculation though.

The Silverstein quote has been elaborately constructed as a honeypot trap.
The syntax of the quote seems to imply certain causal relations, but when you analyze it, it doesn't.

That PM tries to confuse the term 'pull', can just be a cointelpro measure to further drag us down this fruitless path.

But it can also mean countless other things.

Psychic Friends Network

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

Excellent report Mr. Hutaff.

Excellent report Mr. Hutaff. So right on the money. You need to write more on 911. You smacked the gist of the whole Truth with common sense and an excellent perspective. Power to you my man.


just closing the bold tag

damage to building 7

Silverstein comments aside, the duds at PM have repeatly said the building was damaged from falling debris from twin towers. However, according to PM and the 9/11 commission the twin towers collapsed using only gravity as the main force. We all know that gravity only moves straight down and not laterally. How pretel do massive beams move laterally 350 + feet and damage building 7 when the only apparent force acting on them was gravity which is only a downward force. Any explosions from the diesel tanks which PM also mention could NEVER bring down a symmetrical collapse of the buliding. The only materials which could have struck building 7 was the dust from the collapses of the towers. Are we do believe that DUST can gouge out 25% of building 7 and cause it to collapse into it's own footprint?

peace out