Thoughts on the technical side of the wtc collapses

First up, I'm not an engineer. However, I'd like to stimulate a bit of discussion on a technical aspect because I haven't seen it discussed in this context.

A common comment is that all three towers fell due to controlled demolition. The implication being that the collapses were identical. Of course they weren't. The first two [wtc 1 & 2] were subjected to a much more complex process than the third [wtc7].

I'd like to look at wtc 1 & 2 for two reasons:

1. A lack of supporting explanation could be a source for debunking fun.
2. A good supporting explanation would be yet another obvious smoking gun [apart from squibs, etc].

It appears that the normal way to pull a building is to break it off at the base then cut it rapidly floor by floor from the bottom up. This process is visible in wtc7 and all the comparitive examples.

I believe that the perpetrators used the standard technique on wtc7 a. because it wasn't going to be hit by a plane and b. the original plan was to say that it was dropped due to instability caused by collateral damage [I cite Silverstein's video statement re 'pulling' the building].

It would have been critical for the perpetrators to make the wtc 1& 2 collapses look different - they were collapsing due to structural failure from heat damage, not being pulled. It would have been obvious to them that the sight of precisely timed squibs racing up the side of the buildings would destroy this fiction. A way to mask this was employed.

The huge plumes of dust and smoke that rolled down the sides of the buildings came very close to doing the job. You have to look very closely to see the squibs.

We've heard from Rodriguez re the 30th floor and the IT guy on the 100th floor about construction noises on floors that were untenanted. It seems logical that, being unable to predict the exact location of the projected impacts, the perpetrators would have mined a series of empty floors with more than just the steel cutting charges. The mined floor would be used to cut off a large, intact section of the tower above the impact and turn it into a huge pile driver.

If you take a pile of fluidised fine powder and drop a dense weight into it, you get a splash very similar to the descending cascades of the towers [For the practical-minded I suggest trying a pile of newly tipped out portland cement and a brick - stand back when you do it].

Here's the bit where I'd like a reality check from the engineering guys.

Here's the process I think they used:

1. Chop the basement - white smoke at street level
2. Weaken the main bearers - thermate
3. Wait to see where the planes hit and dial up the nearest 'mined' floor below it on your computer controlled demolition sequencer.
4. Wait for the fires to develop so it looks real bad - in the case of the south tower, starting to topple due to asymmetrical impact
5. blow the mined floor and start the squibs but do them in reverse order - top to bottom!

Result - the top section of the tower, still intact, drops into a newly fluidised matrix of cement dust and various bits, throwing out the huge plumes we saw and hiding the progressive squib shots. The largely intact top sections would have disintegrated when they hit the bottom and, viola! A pile of dust, very few visible squibs and a process that could be argued to be quite dissimilar to a controlled demolition.

The one flaw in this process is that, once known, it can easily shown be to be a man-made phenomenon. Hence the massive establishment effort to prevent serious enquiry.

Comments?

[Stop press - please refer below to post from 'consciousness' and my reply for a correction to the above theory].

Interesting my friend

I do too consider that this mass of debris and pulverised cement acted like a veil over the destructive action of explosives used that very day.

Drummerboy
**********************************************************
You can't hide a lie for long. Truth shall come out.

Good work.

This is a great addition and precedent that we can all work on and improve. I will post this info at the www.LooseChangeForums.com, www.911Movement.org Forums and www.PilotsFor911Truth.com Forums.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11237...

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=7396&vie...

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=176&view=findpost&p=136...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://TruthSeeker.us
Spread the word! Many hands make light work! EMA: educate, motivate, activate.
Improve your activist toolkit and get your free RCFPs here http://www.RockCreekFreePress.com

Also......

Those bombs inside WTC 1&2 could have been placed between floors like this:

Core | | ||
Collumn ->| | Concrete floor ||
| |====================||<---Outer wall
Explosive->|+| VVVVVVVVVVV || <----Space Between ceiling and floor where squibs could
| | =========== || come out.
| | ^ ||
| | Steel trusses ||

That's why nobody could have seen them.

Which would explain...

...the banging and crashing noises AND the apparent emptiness when the IT guy sneaked a peek AND the white powder that the IT guy saw everywhere the week before the incident.

Come to think of it, if you're going to strap shaped charges to fireproofed steel girders you'd have to scrape off the asbestos in the area where the charge needs to go. Anyone out there got access to hospital records for post-911 asbestosis patients?

PLUS - If we could get the IT guy from the 100th floor to get a medical checkup, he might show unusually high levels of asbestos [which doesn't get metabolised away] from being in the dust.

Great suggestion. Thanks.

btw... I've 'Huffed' this article if anyone would like to go support it, it might even make it to the front page [yeah I know. Unlikely].

Asbestos was only an issue in WTC 1

and they only used it up to (I think it was) the 39th floor. That was when the laws changed and they couldn't use asbestos for insulation anymore, so they switched to a different material. WTC 2 did not use asbestos for insulation.

Strongest analysis I've seen

Strongest analysis I've seen in a while

I would have to say

........very good logic. One need not be an engineer to see the OCT is BS.

Good to see critical thinking...

But I think you've got it wrong. You need to keep doing more research, you don't have all the details yet.

Don't try to figure out how THEY pulled this off. Try to figure out what YOU would have to do if you wanted to pull this off.

First of all, you must realize that these builidngs were "White Elephants". They were badly in need of restoration, asbestos removal, and upgrades. This would have reportedly cost around one billion dollars. Obviously not worth the investment just to spruce up a couple old sky-scrapers. So if they are money-pits, and they cost too much to be repaired, they obviously have to come down. Ok, so what are our options to bring the beasts down?

Option 1. Disassemble from the top down, floor by floor. Sorry, not gonna happen. Too expensive again, costs in the billions.

Option 2. Controlled Demoliton. But how do you do an implosion on a 110 story pencil, with a nearly indestructible central core? Obviously if you blow from the bottom up like a normal implosion, there is almost no way to control where the giant topples. Plus, this building can't fall "into itself". The tall, narrow dimensions plus the mammoth cores won't allow it. So you have to EXPLODE it, from the top down. But even this will wreak havoc on the surrounding neighborhood. There's really no way to bring a building like this down cleanly and safely, plus, New Yorkers are going to have a fit if you try to take away their sky-line. So what to do?

Well, maybe you just happen to have a friend in the government who is looking for a way to start a war and blame it on Muslims...

A-HA!! So these towers have to come down, and the most cost effective way is controlled demo. This is going to cause tons of damage, but the way of minimal chaos would be to explode and pulverize them before they hit the ground. So if we're looking to do this in a clandestine way, AND instigate a war with Muslims at the same time, how do we pull it off? Airplane hijacking, of course!!! Everyone knows Muslims are terrorists and they like to steal planes. Fly a plane into the building and make it look like the plane knocked the building down!!

You see, the demolition WASN'T designed around the plane impact. The plane impact was brought in as a soluiton for how to mask the demolition. It was simply misdirection, plus a way to blame Muslims.

Now, a couple other problems with your analysis...

"It seems logical that, being unable to predict the exact location of the projected impacts..."

But they WOULD be able to predict the exact location of the projected impacts if the planes were GPS guided. And when we think about the high stakes of this operation, and how ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL it would be for the planes to hit their targets, we can see that there is CLEARLY NO WAY this mission would be left up to Arab hijacker patsies. The planes absolutely had to hit the buildings, and the only way to guarantee this would be through GPS/autopilot guidance.

Also, there is a bit more evidence that the planes were precision guided to hit those exact spots. Now, this doesn't say much on its own and may seem silly at first, but when taken in context with all the other pieces of evidence it becomes a bit more significant. The redesigned Federal Reserve notes that came out in '99 and 2000. No it isn't an urban legend. If you fold the bills a certain way, they REALLY DO show the Trade Center disaster. And no, it isn't a coincidence. If just one bill showed something that looked like the Twin Towers, THAT could be called a coincidence. It's not just on one bill. It's on FIVE! And it's in sequence!! If you still think this is a coincidence, I suggest you get a mathematician to work out the statistical probability of EIGHT images of the disaster appearing on FIVE bills (Five of those images in sequential order). Start with a five dollar bill, and go up to a one hundred dollar bill. If they are folded correctly, they show the entire sequence of destruciton in ascending order starting on the 5 dollar bill. AND on the backs of three of the folded bills, is the Pentagon hit. This is no coincidence. And yes, these bills were designed and released BEFORE 9/11. Now, the reason this matters (some) is because on the 20 dollar bill, we can see the Twin Towers smoking from the exact same locations where the actual hits occurred. Since the bills were designed and released before the disaster, the location of the impacts must have been pre-determined. (And obviously there are logistical reasons for predetermining the impact sites.) Now, I don't want to give the impression that I'm basing my conclusions on this bill folding trick. Rather, this small detail just adds a bit more support to the idea of government complicity, and helps show that the details of the attack were planned in advance.

Check out the bill trick here: http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml

Now the last thing I have to say, is that there is a problem with this assumption:

"The largely intact top sections would have disintegrated when they hit the bottom and..."

Careful analysis of the collapse proves that the top floors actually disintegrated BEFORE "crushing" or "pile driving" the floors below them. In other words, the top 15-20 floors were blown from the bottom up, more like a classic controlled demo. Only instead of imploding into themselves from the bottom up, they exploded outward from the bottom up. Then, once the roof-line had collapsed down into the dust cloud, and the resulting "shroud" had enveloped several floors below the plane impact site, the top-down explosion sequence began for the rest of the building.

Here is a photographic analysis that proves this assertion: http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154

The thing that had me stumped for a while was how could they have wired the upper floors of the building and not had their wires cut off by the plane impacts... DUH!! Wireless!!!! Remote detonators. Problem solved.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Excellent feedback - thank you

This validates, for me, the benefits of frank and open discussion.

I visited both of your links and was very impressed by Gordon Ross's work.

I suspect that you may both be right about the top section being flattened first. In retrospect, I think that methodology would probably be more effective than leaving it intact.

I still consider the balance of my theory to be robust but, by adding your correction re the top section we now get a compressed, much denser, pile driver.

On the dollar bill origami stuff I'm afraid I feel a bit like a 911-denier in front of a 911Truth demonstration. It seems a bit far fetched.

The foldings are fascinating and the thing with the viewpoint always being thru the arch is interesting but, I keep asking myself why?

Why would a group of people about to pull of the biggest crime of the 21st century [up until the Iraq war started] want to give the game away; AND, if they did want to give the game away, why not do it more clearly.

I'd like to hear your views on those questions.

Thanks.

Two heads are better than one.

I'm glad to engage in some discussion on this topic. We can all help each other get a better understanding of this event.

"...by adding your correction re the top section we now get a compressed, much denser, pile driver."

One more comment on this. You've missed my point a bit. I'm not saying a "denser pile driver", I'm saying no "pile driver" at all. All the material that makes up the mass of the building is being ejected outside the profile of the building, or pulverized to fine dust and suspended in the air. There is in fact almost NO mass left to "crush" the building, as it is all being exploded away. It is just the carefully timed sequence of explosions that creates the optical illusion that the building is "pancaking". There was no gravitational "crushing" at all. Just sequential explosion and pulverization.

"The foldings are fascinating and the thing with the viewpoint always being thru the arch is interesting but, I keep asking myself why?

Why would a group of people about to pull of the biggest crime of the 21st century [up until the Iraq war started] want to give the game away; AND, if they did want to give the game away, why not do it more clearly."

Why is the highly incriminating PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" available on the internet? Obviously if I make any conjectures as to "why" some of these things were done, I'd just be speculating. I don't know, certain items like the PNAC document, the folded bills, the missing Pentagon videos, etc. certainly make it seem like the perps WANT to be caught.

The bill folding thing is really just a bit of an oddity, nothing to base a court case on. But the fact is that it 100% DEFINITELY has to be by design. It is no accident in the ink, no "cosmic coincidence". One posible explanation is the "elites'" penchant for "hidden in plain sight" symbology. Here are some other examples:

The Pentagon: Obvious symbology here. A five sided (pentagram) being the seat of war...

The Washington Monument: It stands 555 feet above ground, and reportedly has a 111 foot "root". (I haven't seen any verification on the depth of the root, but even so, the 555 feet above ground has symbolic overtones by itself.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_monument (Oh, wait, Wiki says the foundation is only 36 feet deep...) Also, the Egyptian obelisk shape has some symbolic meaning as well.

The "Great Seal" of the United States: Pyramid (Egyptian again) with "All Seeing Eye"

Coronado Naval Base: This complex of buildings was "accidentally" constructed in the shape of a swastika. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Amphibious_Base_Coronado#Swastika-sha... You can look at an arial view of the building on Google Earth. It is just south-west of San Diego, California.

Numerous "mega-corporations" use "all seeing eyes" or "reptilian" eyes for their logos. See Verichip's logo (reptilian eye), AOL's logo (All seeing eye on pyramid), Time Warner's logo (Eye of Ra?), Vodafone's logo (contains 3 sixes), CBS's logo (Eye)

Arial views of Washington DC reveal both pentagram and owl (Bohemian Grove Mascot) symbols in the layout of the streets.

Again, I'm not saying this stuff should be the first thing we mention when trying to build a case against the PTB. It might not even be significant enough or necessary to mention at all. But there are far too many of these symbolic clues to call them pure coincidence. At the very least it is evidence of possible occultism within the power stucture.

(Fanatical Christians, Jews, or Muslims running the show would worry me just as much as fanatical Satanists.)

------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Curse those ugly facts...

...they keep bending my beautiful theory!

I had a look at the core standing photo. Blast!

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

As useful, I'm grateful for the feedback.

:-)

"Controlled Demoliton. But

"Controlled Demoliton. But how do you do an implosion on a 110 story pencil, with a nearly indestructible central core? Obviously if you blow from the bottom up like a normal implosion, there is almost no way to control where the giant topples. Plus, this building can't fall "into itself". The tall, narrow dimensions plus the mammoth cores won't allow it. So you have to EXPLODE it, from the top down."

Sorry, no.

*IF* I were tasked to officially do it, and could tell everybody the towers were going to be controlled-demolished: my experts I had to employ would very likely still prefer it to run the "normal" implosion type. It's just so much "safer" to control. Doesn't cause *that* much of dust...

And, no, it will NOT topple the giant! It will use a wave explosions that go from the bottom up. As the upper, non-exploded part moves down and just before it reaches ground level, each lowermost floor is blown. Give a split second of advance time to cut-explode the inner core colums and you'll get a tendency to pulling the outer walls to the center, minimizing the potential damage to the surrounding buildings.

Why in reality the perpetrators pulled of the demolition in a "non-classical" way [from top to bottom] is up to speculation. My own guess -- two considerations were employed:

  • let it look like the plane crashes caused/triggered it
  • let it have more 'drama' effect which is better to create the public myth needed for swinging public opinion behind the planned '9/11 wars'

But this speculation is of secondary importance. The most important point still is: what the government tells us does not add up. It is a story composed of hundreds of lies. We have enough evidence of man-made, planned, "controlled" demolition for "Ground Zero". And the same number of lies is evident when we look at the Pentagon, or at the Shanksville "crash site".

To come up with a complete alternative explanation about how *exactly* it was done is a mood excercise at this point in time...

We'll need professional analysis to know for sure...

but I'd bet a nice chunk of change that you can't do a classic "implosion" on these buildings.

"*IF* I were tasked to officially do it, and could tell everybody the towers were going to be controlled-demolished: my experts I had to employ would very likely still prefer it to run the "normal" implosion type. It's just so much "safer" to control. Doesn't cause *that* much of dust...

Have you looked at the blueprints or any of the photos of the towers being constructed? (Both are available online.) These towers have 47 (?) massive steel columns in their center. If you tried to "implode" it, where would the material go? The center is occupied by extremely strong, dense material already (steel). And I'm telling you, a classic bottom-up implosion won't work on a building that tall and narrow. Think about the physics. If the bottom is blown out, and the rest of the tower is allowed to tilt just one or two degrees, how many feet outside the footprint will the top be when it impacts the ground? What if the tower tilts five degrees, then (hypothetically) the angular momentum is arrested and it just plummets straight down? How far outside the footprint of the building will the top of the tower impact after a five degree tilt? Do you see the problem? Sweeping the feet out from under a 1,300 foot tower is not the best way to control the process. The smallest change at the bottom of the tower will be hugely magnified by the time it reaches the top. In other words, if the tower began to topple, the angular momentum would be far to large a risk factor. The building could end up knocking over 5 or 6 other structures (x2).

Do you know what was the second tallest building (after the Twin Towers) to undergo a controlled demolition? WTC7. I believe that after Building 7, the next largest CD was about 40 stories or less. Now, look at all the other videos of CD you can find. You'll notice that all the buildings (including BLDG7) have roughly similar dimensions. None of these buildings have central cores like the Twin Towers. The space in the center of a building is usually occupied by normal office or living space, or stairwells or elevator shafts, NOT a mammoth steel lattice. Some buildings might have individual steel columns running from the basement to the top, but these are spaced out rather evenly across the footprint of the building, not concentrated only in the center. You simply couldn't demolish the Twin Towers in the same way that other structures were taken down. They were unique.

Anyway, maybe someone could bother Danny Jowenko to look at the blueprints of the towers and see how he thinks it could be done?

"let it look like the plane crashes caused/triggered it
let it have more 'drama' effect which is better to create the public myth needed for swinging public opinion behind the planned '9/11 wars' "

Of course these points are important. I don't know, maybe what we saw was in fact THE ONLY scenario that could have been played out to destroy the towers clandesinely. To place the blame on Musilms would almost certainly require the plane hijackings, because a normal bombing would warrant normal forensic investigation, and probably wouldn't be able to bring the towers down.

I think it was a case of killing two birds with one stone (Killing 3 towers with two birds?). Somebody wanted the towers demolished, but this could not be done like other controlled demolitions. The neocons wanted their war but this couldn't be done without their "New Pearl Harbor". Considering the logistics of the best way to bring the towers down and how to work in the theatrical elements, I think we saw the only feasible gameplan.

"But this speculation is of secondary importance. The most important point still is: what the government tells us does not add up. It is a story composed of hundreds of lies. We have enough evidence of man-made, planned, "controlled" demolition for "Ground Zero". And the same number of lies is evident when we look at the Pentagon, or at the Shanksville "crash site".

To come up with a complete alternative explanation about how *exactly* it was done is a mood excercise at this point in time..."

I agree with all of that completely.

------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

I'll just say: Silverstein quote is bogus evidence

He never said 'pull the building.' He said, "Pull it."

Tales of 9/11 Truthiness
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/tales-of-911-truthiness.html

Spreading out-of-context misinformation as your strongest evidence is not going to help you out on the wider web.

And frankly, why would anyone want to?

(See this post voted down to a -12 at least, for telling it like it is).

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Au contraire...

Pull the building is exactly what he did say. He just phrased it differently.

Here is the complete verbatim quote from the 'Rebuilding America' video:

"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.

as in, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing is to pull it, and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

All sentences have to have a subject. In the closing sentence above, the subject is 'the building'. The word 'it', when used within the same sentence can only refer to the subject.

From a grammatical viewpoint he was unequivocably referring to the building when he said pull it.

I would be extremely interested in your interpretation of the above verbatim quote if you construe it differently.

I would also like to mention that Silversteins remarks are by no means my strongest evidence. The video evidence is remarkably strong.

As for voting your post to -12. Far from it. I appreciate your feedback even if we disagree. The beauty of free speech is that we're allowed to hold and express different opinions.

I forget who made the remark and I know I'm mis-quoting it but... I may not agree with your opinions, but I'll fight to the death for your right to have them.

:-)

Did you bother to read the article?

"Pull the building is exactly what he did say. He just phrased it differently."

Well since that's the matter we completely disagree over, saying it is so doesn't make it so.

"Here is the complete verbatim quote from the 'Rebuilding America' video:

"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.

as in, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing is to pull it, and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

The second part is inaccurate, and should read:

" 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." (PBS, 2002)"

"All sentences have to have a subject. In the closing sentence above, the subject is 'the building'."

Grammatical errors. This is a COMPOUND SENTENCE:

"And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

The compound sentence is comprised of two sentences joined with "and", "or," or "but," ie. conjunctions.

Sentence 1:

"And they made that decision to pull..."

"They" means the fire department. The fire department "commander" is the person on the other end of the phone. The fire department made that decision to "pull." What they pulled was "it," referred to previously.

"'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'"

The object of this sentence is not the building. "Loss of life" is the focus, not building 7. Minimizing "loss of life" by the "fire department" is the purpose of this conversation (if we agree that the conversation is genuine and actually took place at all).

2nd half of the compound sentence:

"...and we watched the building collapse."

We watched the building "collapse." In what way is this an admission of demolition? This is a blatant attempt to frame the event as a "collapse."

In that context, the entire conversation should be taken as a positing of the official collapse theory. The fire department was "pulled", and the fire caused a structural failure that led to "collapse."

" The word 'it', when used within the same sentence can only refer to the subject."

From a grammatical viewpoint he was unequivocably referring to the building when he said pull it.

I would be extremely interested in your interpretation of the above verbatim quote if you construe it differently."

Already answered above.

"I would also like to mention that Silversteins remarks are by no means my strongest evidence."

It's included in your piece in a prominent way as evidence. It's included in most "truther" pieces as evidence, when there is a strong possibility that it's completely bogus, taken out of context, misinformation. Rather than facing these facts, they persist in repeating the claim as if there is no legitimate criticism of it.

" The video evidence is remarkably strong."

But that's not what we're talking about.

what is "it"

You never explained what "it" is. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull "it". Pulling firemen (plural) does not mean pull "it" (singular). Pulling "it" (singular) means pull the building (singular). Besides, there were no firemen in that building past 11:30 so there were no firemen or anybody else to pull. The only thing left to pull is the building.

The next line "they made that decision to pull (the building) and we watched the building collapse" makes more sense than

"they made that decision to pull (the non-existent firefighters (plural) and we watched the building collapse." does not make much sense. All common sense.

There's no point in arguing with him over it...

Believe me, it's been tried.

Evidently he's the sole native speaker of English who thinks that a singular "it" would be used to refer to plural firefighters. I think it's obvious that it means just what it sounds like -- but I also think that Larry S was talking out his ass (back when an instantaneously-set-up CD was being floated as a possible explanation -- before they pulled it.)

I didn't read the article...

I watched the video clip and transcribed it word for word.

This is obviously an issue you feel strongly about and, as you can see in the other comments, you are at odds with many of the other bloggers.

I currently also disagree with your case. However, if you have the time and interest I would be keen to look at your arguments. Preferably if you were to develop them more fully and not just have a list of bullet point rebuttals.

If you have a case laid out, please post it here and we can get a better idea of where you're coming from.

thanx.

"Pull it" is a highly debatable piece of evidence...

Still, I think it helps many people with the "waking up" process and gets them questioning. It did for me.

I tend to lean toward it being a freudian admission of guilt. Listen to the emphasis he places on the word "...pull it...". I believe the assessment that this word is common demolition jargon is an accurate one. Here Silverstein seems to be trying to show of his knowledge of the technical jargon by emphasizing the term. Also, I think BoneZ is correct, the building was evactuated hours before the collapse. There were no firefighters to "pull". Plus, despite the grammatical errors, I think a cause and effect relationship is implied in Silverstein's statement between the "decision to pull" and "watching the building collapse".
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

my 10c

There seem to have been quite a few people with foreknowledge of wtc 7 coming down. Kerry, giuliani, the firemen and police on the day, etc.

Following the money makes it impossible to believe that Silverstein wasn't a conspirator. The insurance policy, the necessary access to the buildings, etc.

My feeling has been that within the overal 'project' of 911, the plan A was probably to claim wtc 7 was pulled due to collateral damage. I felt that the original plan may have been dropped when it became apparent that wtc 7 was not being discussed much or questioned. The 'KISS' [Keep It Simple, Stupid] principle.

I'm a big fan of Occam's razor. I'm still happy with the idea that Silversteins remarks can be taken at face value.

Another refinement to the theory

I've been trying to work out why the dust plumes from the collapse took the form they did. Mostly upwards and outwards.

If the huge plumes were direct consequences of the demolition charges I would expect them to be constrained by the floor layers and have a predominently horizontal character.

Inspection of the many stills from the two collapses reveals two main forms of dust ejection:

1. Straight up
2. A ballistic arc upwards and away from the centre of the building

Some stills also reveal that the process of collapse left the outer shell standing in some places only to topple under its own weight. There was obviously no explosive shattering and bursting of some parts of the outer shell.

Therefore my current proposed methodology is as follows:

a. Cut buildings support at the base and pulverise sub-ground cavity
b. Condition the building for collapse by using shaped charges [thermite/thermate] to weaken main supports
c. Cut off a section of at the top of the building
d. Flatten the detached section in order to reduce area/windage and increase density over size. This essentially turns the top section into a giant, unstoppable plunger [Thanks to 'Consciousness' for help with this].
e. Starting just under the newly detached top section, set off conventional demolition charges. N.B. Unlike conventional demolitions, the charges were sequenced to start at the top and proceed downwards. These charges would be set to pulverize everything EXCEPT the outer skin of the building.

By proceeding as above the perpetrators contrived to have a large, very dense plunger sink thru a fluidised [aerated] matrix of pulverised debris WITHIN a semi-rigid tube. Although the outer skin would have lasted only fractions of a second longer than the contents, it would have been sufficient to create a pressure differential between the inside of the tube below the plunger and the inside of the tube above the plunger.

Where the shell remained intact longer, the compressed, fluidised debris was 'squirted' straight upwards in the large, highly visible jets most obvious on the south tower. Where the shell was lower or bursting, the jet effect would have been less but still sufficient to blow the debris outwards past the disintegrating edge of the tube. Both of these effects ensured that the dust plume could conceal the details of the demolition charges and provide a plausible non-demolition explanation.

Comments?

I get the point...

About whether or not this discussion has any point. I have four reasons for putting my time into it.

1. Just plain curious. It bothers the hell out of me that they did something so huge in front of so many people and we can't work out how.

A bit like the way you feel when a stage magician pulls of a stunt and you just can't work out how. I still remember how good it felt when I first worked out how they do the floating lady trick.

2. Even tho a theory that fit all the facts would still be purely speculative it would give us the ability to present it more convincingly to unbelievers. It might also suggest some leads for investigation.

Personally, when I watch the videos of the 911 activists and I hear them get round to the 'buildings fell at free fall speed' its starting to sound a bit like a mantra. I'd like to give them something to flesh out that part of the discussion.

3. In the same way, all the discussions I have seen discuss wtc 1, 2 & 7 as controlled demolitions and some make the comment that they were brought down in the same way. If I were attempting to debunk the story, I would have a field day with the obvious differences in appearence between wtc 1 & 2 and 7.

4. There is a reason for everything we do, including the 911 perpetrators. wtc 7 and every other CD I've watched were pulled using essentially the same technique. wtc 1 & 2 were pulled using an obviously different technique. If we can understand the technique, we are closer to understanding the reason why. Knowing the reason helps us understand the perpetrators a little more. The more we know the perpetrators, the closer we are to being able to say 'j'accuse' and actually nail the bastards.

It does seem to me sometimes that the activist movement has settled into a mode where the effort is 99% on proselytising and 1% on investigation with a view to finding out who did it. We only need to get one name, just one, and the rest will follow. Until we do, its just an amorphous concept 'they'.

In the final analysis I think this movemment is stronger for filling in the gaps. For myself, your replies to my post have taught me quite a lot I didn't know. That on its own has been valuable.