Category Archives: WTC Building 7

Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 was admitted by its developer on national television

Garlic & Grass
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue8/Don_Paul.cfm

Issue No. 8 – The Matrix (Spring 2005)

The Best Evidence Available on the 9-11 Conspiracy

By Don Paul

The most revealing statement about the conspiracy that orchestrated mass murder on September 11, 2001 was broadcast across the United States more than two years ago.

On September 14, 2002, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) aired a documentary on reconstrucion of the former World Trader Center site in lower Manhattan. The show’s title was “America Rebuilds.” During this PBS documentary, the developer of World Trade Center (WTC) Building 7, Larry Silverstein of Silverstein Properties, said that he and “the commander” of the New York City Fire Department had decided to “pull” WTC Building 7 late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001.

The developer, then 70 years old, whose Silverstein Properties had become the principal lease-holder of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers just seven weeks before 9/11/01, told PBS:

“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such a 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.”1

To “pull” a building, in the lexicon of realtors and Fire Departments, is to demolish it. Thus, in its context, Larry Silverstein’s repeated use of the phrase “to pull” means “to demolish.” At another point, earlier in this “America Rebuilds” documentary, there is a sequence of quotes about WTC Building 6, a building also brought to ground on the morning of 9-11, which makes clear that “to pull” means to demolish:

First, the PBS documentary plays an official’s voice on that horrendous morning: “Hello? We’re getting ready to pull Building 6.”

Then the documentary presents commentary by Luis Mendes of New York City’s Department of Design and Construction: “We had to be very careful how we demolished Building 6. We were worried about Building 6 coming down and then damaging the story walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.”

The conclusion? Larry Silverstein’s nationally aired statement means, simply, that he and others must have prepared WTC Building 7 for demolition. Could this preparation for demolition have taken place on a single afternoon? As we will see below, because it was a 47-story skyscraper containing 2 million square feet of office space, this preparation must have taken at least several weeks. Several weeks, that is, before Sept. 11, 2001.
For a Controlled Demolition, Call Controlled Demolition, Inc.

Controlled Demoliton, Inc. (CDI), of Baltimore, Maryland is one of the world’s leaders in demolishing large buildings. Owned for three generations by the Loizeaux family, CDI details on its website the ‘World Records’ that the company holds in demolishing huge structures — monuments such as the former Kingdome in Seattle. The CDI website also relates the timespans that have been required for the company’s accomplishments.

How much time would be required for the planning and emplacement of charges for the symmetric implosion of WTC Building 7 that we saw on 9-11? WTC Building 7 was a 47-story tower that sat less than 100 feet from other skyscrapers. We read on the CDI site about a 17-story building of reinforced concrete in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia — the Sheikh A. Alaki Apartment Building — which collapsed while under construction by the Bechtel Corporation in 1998.

The CDI site relates: ‘At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition, Inc.’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours, and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety just 96 hours after the start of demolition preparations.’

96 hours. Four days. This was the time needed for emergency demolition of a 17-story building of reinforced concrete by a CDI team.

A building in Detroit, Mich. of comparable size to WTC Building 7 — the J L Hudson store, standing 35 stories tall and containing 2.2 million square feet — took CDI almost five months to prepare and bring down in 1998.

The CDI site reports that after four months of study by associate contractors:

CDI’s 12-person loading crew took 24 days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequences and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lbs of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

So. Four months, plus an additional 24 days, were needed to place the charges necessary to demolish, within its 420-foot-by-220-foot footprint, a building 12 stories smaller than WTC Building 7.

How, then, could the preparation and emplacement of charges to “pull” WTC Building 7 be accomplished in a single afternoon? In particular, during the tumultuous afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, right there at ‘Ground Zero’?

What It All Means

Larry Silverstein’s statement on national television means that the preparation for demolition of WTC Building 7 must have preceded 9-11 by weeks, if not months.

Upon a moment of reflection, the developer’s statement also means that al Queda could not be at all involved in this most revealing part of the horrific 9-11 crimes.

It means, upon further reflection, that only those with secret access to WTC Building 7’s 25 central columns and 58 perimeter columns of structural steel could have been responsible for placing the charges that accomplished its symmetric, precipitous, inward collapse which took no more than a gravity-like 6.5 seconds as all of the skyscraper’s 570-foot-high mass crashed to the ground. It means that the building’s developer and lease-holder, Larry Silverstein, himself, was probably integrally involved in the 9-11 conspiracy. It means also that WTC Building 7’s mortgage-holders on 9-11, the Blackstone Group, Banc of America Securities, and the General Motors Acceptance Corporation, were probably also privy to the protracted planning and placing of explosive charges within their property. It means that these three pillars of the United States’ financial establishment were probably integrally involved in the conspiracy both to commit the terrible crimes of 9-11 and to reap enormous profits from the consequent “War on Terrorism.”

When we look at the different, but nearly equally obvious, demolitions of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers, and consider the amount of time needed for the planning and placement of charges to collapse these gigantic structures as they actually fell (straight down into their footprints), we see that the entity which controlled the Twin Towers for decades and which awarded the lease of the Twin Towers to the consortium of realtors headed by Silverstein Properties in April 2001 — the New York Port Authority — must also come under suspicion in the emplacement of the charges that were necessary for the demolitions and the killing of more than two thousand people.

Connecting the Dots

Banc of America Securities. The General Motors Acceptance Corporation. The New York Port Authority. We’re led still deeper into the heart of the United States’ financial establishment, for the New York Port Authority is a body long controlled by the family most powerful and manipulative in Manhattan real estate: the Rockefeller family.

Of the Rockefellers, the banker David, head of both the Chase Manhattan Bank and the Council on Foreign Relations from the late 1960s into the 1980s, was the main mover behind construction of the World Trade Center from the early 1960s forward. During this period of consrtuction, David’s brother, Nelson, was Governor of New York, and thus, as Governor, the ultimate, nominal boss of the New York Port Authority, the entity that was for many years the largest tenant (with 20,000 employees resident) in either Tower.

In October 2000, David Rockefeller’s close associate Peter G. Peterson, who was Chairman of both the Council of Foreign Relations and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on 9-11, led the multifold-investment company of which he was also Chairman, the Blackstone Group, into purchase of the portion of the mortgage on WTC Buildling 7 that was held by the Traveler’s Group.

In February of 2002, the Blackstone Group, Banc of America Securities, the General Motors Acceptance Corporation, and Silverstein Properties shared in a award from Industrial Risk Insurers of $861 million for loss of the obviously demolished WTC Building 7. The total investment of the lease-holder and mortgage-holders for WTC 7 was $386 million. Thus they shared in a profit of $475 million for the demolished Building 7.

At the time of the Towers’ transfer from the New York Port Authority to Silverstein Properties they faced much more than $1 billion in costs for renovation and asbestos-removal. Eric Darton’s excellent study of the World Trade Center, Divided We Stand, published in 2000, summarizes the property’s problems as real estate:

‘To maintain the trade center as class-A office space commanding top rents, the [Port Authority] would have had to spend $800 million rebuilding the electrical, electronic communication, and cooling systems.’

These problems were, of course, removed from the Port Authority when it leased away the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Buildings 4, 5, 6 and 400,000 feet of retail space to the consortium led by Silverstein Properties seven weeks prior to 9-11. The $3.2 billion long-term price for the 99-year lease was widely thought to be low for properties estimated to be worth $8 billion over that time-span. JP Morgan Chase, the flagship of Rockefeller-controlled Banks, advised the Port Authority in the award of this lease. The new lease-holders immediately took out insurance policies worth more than the total, long-term price of their new WTC holdings. Silverstein Properties itself invested only $15 million of the less than $600 million actually transferred to the Port Authority. The British Financial Times reported on September 14, 2001:

The lease has an all-important escape clause: If the buildings are struck by “an act of terrorism,” the new owners’ obligations under the lease are void. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings that collapses or were otherwise destroyed and damaged in the attacks.

Taking It to the Bank

In April 2004, Silverstein Properties and its partners won an award of $4.8 billion from their claim for $7.1 billion in losses to their 2001 World Trade Center acquisitions as a result of the 9-11 attacks.

Other insurance-related profits followed from the mass destruction and death in lower Manhattan on 9-11. There were huge increases in the premiums subsequently paid to the largest surviving insurer corporations. In this regard, an interview CDI Executive Mark Loizeaux gave to New Scientist in July 2004 is instructive. The CDI executive was asked: ‘But 9/11 has also sent your insurance up, hasn’t it?’ Mark Loizeaux replied: ‘It’s gone up about 2000 percent since 9-11. Not only because of 9-11 but because insurance companies lost a great deal of money in the stock market collapse just preceding 9-11 with the collapse of dot.coms.’

The amounts of revenue and profit for two of the largest US insurer Corporations — Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway and Maurice Greenberg’s American International Group — between 2002 and 2003 were exorbitant.2

Large as these amounts to insurer corporations are, they’re dwarfed by the post-9/11 financial gains from the “War on Terrorism” accruing to: oil-and-gas corporations such as Chevron, Exxon, British Peteroleum and Royal Dutch Shell; weapons-making corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grunman, and General Dynamics; and money-laundering banks and stock markets through which the post-2001 $180-billion-per-year in profits from Afghan-grown opium are flowing. These profits are charted or noted in Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9-11 Crimes in New York City, a book Jim Hoffman and I have written.

All of these corporations are connected in multiple ways through their interlocking boards of directors and major stock-holders. As of 1993, the Rockefeller family was among the top five vote-holders in 93 of the United States’ 122 largest corporations. As of 1997, the Chase Bank and Citigroup controlled more than half the stock of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

All of these corporations have vital connections to the heart of the US financial establishment, which is thoroughly represented among the financiers who constructed or controlled the World Trade Center before the demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7.

Thus, developer and lease-holder Larry Silverstein’s nationally televised statement concerning the decision to “pull” WTC Building 7 is itself the most clear-cut key we now have on the public record for unlocking the whole of the conspiracy which orchestrated the demolitions and the resulting murder of thousands in lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001, as the pretext for more war outside the US and more repression inside.

Don Paul, author and activist, recommends www.wtc7.net for more information on what really happened on 9-11. Books and albums of his are up at www.wireonfire.com/donpaul.

Evidence that NIST Lied about When He and Barry Jennings Were Rescued from WTC-7

The 9/11 Interview with Michael Hess: Evidence that NIST Lied about When He and Barry Jennings Were Rescued

by David Ray Griffin

Shortly after the first strike on the World Trade Center, which occurred at 8:46 AM on 9/11, Michael Hess, New York City’s corporation counsel, and Barry Jennings, the deputy director of the Emergency Services Department of the New York City Housing Authority, headed to the Office of Emergency Management’s Emergency Operating Center, which was on the 23rd floor of WTC 7, where they assumed that Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be. But when Hess and Jennings arrived, the place was empty. Jennings then telephoned someone to ask what they should do and was told that they should leave immediately. Finding that the elevators would not work, they started down the stairs. When they reached the sixth floor, however, there was a powerful explosion beneath them, which, Jennings told the makers of Loose Change Final Cut, [1] caused the landing on which they were standing to give way. Making their way back up to the eighth floor, they were able to break a window and call for help. Hess later reported: “[W]e were trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke, all around us, for about an hour and a half [before] the New York Fire Department . . . came and got us out.” [2]

Hess made this statement while being interviewed by Frank Ucciardo of UPN 9 News “on Broadway about a block from City Hall,” almost a half mile from WTC 7. This interview began before noon, most likely at 11:34. The conclusion that it began at 11:34 is based on evidence derived from a DVD containing UPN 9 programs from that morning, in which the Hess interview begins at the 57-minute mark. According to a note on the DVD itself, its video began at 10:37 AM, which would mean that the Hess interview began at 11:34. It is possible, however, that the video might have actually started at 11:00: At the 111-minute mark, the UPN 9 program switched to live coverage by CNN of a Taliban news conference, and the only reference we have been able to find to this coverage indicates that it began at 12:51.[3] This would mean that the video began at 11:00 and the Hess interview, therefore, at 11:57. Nevertheless, whether the earlier or the later starting time is correct, UPN 9 News began interviewing Michael Hess before noon.

However, NIST—the National Institute of Standards and Technology—which was tasked with providing the official explanation of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, claimed that the two men were rescued at “12:10 to 12:15 PM.” [4] Why might NIST have made this claim? The reason becomes evident in another NIST document’s statement about Hess and Jennings, which begins:

"With the collapse of the two towers, a New York City employee and a WTC 7 building staff person became trapped inside of WTC 7. The two had gone to the OEM center on the 23rd floor and found no one there. As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs the lights inside of WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At this point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase." [5]

According to NIST, therefore, Hess and Jennings, upon finding the OEM center vacated, started downstairs just after 9:59, when the second tower collapsed. It was this collapse, NIST suggested, that was responsible for the elevator’s failure to work.

As we saw earlier, however, Jennings said that they had arrived at the OEM center shortly after the strike on the North Tower, hence around 9:00 AM. He added, in fact, that he had to have been on the 23rd floor “when the second plane hit” (which was at 9:03). [6] Besides contradicting Jennings’ testimony on that point, the NIST account went on to say:

"When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 [the North Tower] collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help." [7]

According to NIST, therefore, what Hess and Jennings took to be an explosion in WTC 7 was really just an effect of the collapse of the North Tower. That collapse occurred at 10:28. Accordingly, if the two men were then trapped for about 90 minutes before they were rescued, this rescue must have occurred at about noon—hence NIST’s claim that they were rescued at “12:10 to 12:15 PM.”

NIST’s timeline is clearly implausible. Claiming that Hess and Jennings started down the stairs after the collapse of the South Tower caused the elevator to fail, NIST implies that it took them 29 minutes—from 9:59 to 10:28—to descend from the 23rd floor to the 6th floor.

NIST’s timeline is also directly contradicted by the testimony of Jennings, who said: “After getting to the 8th floor everything was dark . . . . [B]oth buildings were still standing. Because I looked . . . one way, looked the other way. . . . [B]oth buildings were still standing.” [8]

The strongest evidence against NIST’s timeline, however, is Hess’s interview with UPN 9 News. Defenders of the official account, according to which there were no explosions in WTC 7, might challenge the truth of Jennings’s testimony. But if Hess was giving an interview almost a half mile away before noon, then NIST’s timeline, according to which the two men were not rescued until after noon, is objectively disproved. This is the case whether we accept the 11:34 or the 11:57 starting time for this interview.

Given the fact that the interview occurred almost a half mile from the WTC, it would probably have taken Hess at least a half hour to get there after he was rescued (he surely would have talked to firefighters and other officials about the ordeal before taking off). So if the interview began at 11:34, he and Jennings would have been rescued before 11:05. If the interview began at 11:57, they would have been rescued before 11:30.

In either case, NIST’s explanation for the event that Hess and Jennings took to be a massive explosion in WTC 7 itself is disproved. If the two men were rescued before 11:05 after having been trapped, as Hess said, for about 90 minutes, the event must have occurred before 9:35. Even if they were not rescued until closer to 11:30, the event must have occurred at least by 10:00. In either case, the event could not have been the collapse of the North Tower, which did not occur until 10:28.

That said, I endorse the earlier times—11:34 for the beginning of the Hess interview, 11:05 or earlier for the rescue, and 9:35 or earlier for the explosion—for three reasons. First, the note on the DVD says that the video started at 11:34. Second, the account by Hess and Jennings suggests that they would have reached the 6th floor, where the landing was knocked out from under them, at about 9:15. Third, whereas the later times would suggest that this event occurred around 10:00, Jennings stated, as we saw, that after the explosion occurred and he and Hess made it back up to the 8th floor, the South Tower, which collapsed at 9:59, was still standing.

As I pointed out in The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, a BBC special on WTC 7 that aired July 6, 2008 (“The Conspiracy Files: 9/11–The Third Tower”), distorted Jennings’ testimony. Although he evidently told the BBC interviewer the same story he had earlier told to the makers of Loose Change Final Cut, the BBC placed his testimony within the time-framework suggested by NIST. So, after playing footage in which Jennings described a massive explosion in WTC 7 (which was probably at about 9:15), the BBC says: “At 10:28, the North Tower collapses. . . . Tower 7 takes a direct hit. . . . Early evidence of explosives were just debris from a falling skyscraper.” [9]

However, Jennings will apparently not be available to correct the record. Jennings, 53 years old, evidently died in August 2008, reportedly only a few days before NIST issued its report on WTC 7. [10]

In any case, UPN 9’s interview of Michael Hess is now publicly available, thanks to Dylan Avery, who made a copy of it available, and Fred Burks, who posted it at The Transformation Team (click here).

NOTES

[1] This interview was not included in Loose Change Final Cut at Jennings’ request, after he had, he said, received threats to his job. But after Jennings participated in a BBC documentary about WTC 7 (“The Conspiracy Files: 9/11–The Third Tower”), Dylan Avery, who had conducted the interview, put it on the Internet: “Barry Jennings Uncut,” Loose Change 911, July 9, 2008 (http://www.loosechange911.com/blog/?p=105). The term “uncut” in that title alludes to the fact that extracts from this interview had already been posted on the Internet. The interview is also included in a video, Fabled Enemies, produced by Jason Bermas, another member of the Loose Change team.

[2] For documentation of the information provided in this article, see Chapter 1 of David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 45-48.

[3] Michael Ventura, “9/11: American Ungoverned” (http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A83213).

[4] NIST, Appendix L: Interim Report on WTC 7 (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf), L-18. No source for this claim is cited.

[5] NIST NCSTAR 1-8, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: The Emergency Response Operations (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf), Section 5.9.

[6] Quoted in Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 46.

[7] NIST NCSTAR 1-8: Section 5.9

[8] Quoted in Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 46.

[9] Ibid., 276-77 n184.

[10] Aaron Dykes, “Key Witness to WTC 7 Explosions Dead at 53,” Infowars.com, September 16, 2008 (http://www.infowars.com/?p=4602).

Was WTC 7 a Dud?


Was WTC 7 a Dud?
by Jeremy Baker

Facts support the theory that World Trade Center Building 7
was originally meant to implode seconds after the North Tower's collapse

 

The following is a condensed version of the main premise presented
in the original article "Silverstein, Giuliani, WTC

Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall of WTC 7

March 2, 2002
Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall of 3rd Tower
By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON
New York Times

Massive structural beams that functioned as a sort of bridge to hold up the 47-story skyscraper known as 7 World Trade Center were compromised in a disastrous blaze fed by diesel fuel, leading to the building's collapse on Sept. 11, investigators have concluded in a preliminary report.

The tower was set on fire by debris from the twin towers and burned for about seven hours before collapsing in the late afternoon under previously unexplained circumstances. The analysis of its collapse is one of the first detailed findings by a team of engineers organized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers to understand the fate of all the buildings around the site.

As much as 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel was stored near ground level in the tower and ran in pipes up to smaller tanks and emergency generators for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's command center, the Secret Service's office and other tenants.

Investigators have determined that the burning fuel apparently undermined what is known as a transfer truss. The trusses, a series of steel beams that allowed the skyscraper to be built atop multistory electricity transformers, were critical to the structural integrity of the building and ran near the smaller diesel tanks.

A failure of the same type of structural bridge contributed to the collapse of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City when it was bombed in 1995. Federal guidelines for public buildings, created in 1996, warned of the dangers of such trusses in terrorist attacks.

"It's certainly right in the vicinity where the columns go into this transfer system," said a person knowledgeable about the investigators' draft report on the World Trade Center. "The rest of the building is built on top of the bridge."

While 7 World Trade Center, which stood across Vesey Street just to the north of the twin towers, was not formally a federal building, it did house crucial government offices that included the city's nerve center for emergency response.

The investigators said that their conclusions, combined with other findings about the failure and collapse of 5 World Trade Center, could prompt serious changes in the codes used in building construction.

The findings are in a draft report that has already been circulated among government agencies, and are based on videos made on Sept. 11, witnesses' reports, interviews with firefighters, evidence from the debris pile and structural analysis. Team members, who described many of the findings, cautioned that the conclusions on the collapse of 7 World Trade Center could still be modified as reviews proceed.

But Irwin Cantor, one of the building's original structural engineers, who is now a consulting engineer and member of the City Planning Commission, said the diesel-related failure of transfer trusses was a reasonable explanation for the collapse.

He said he believed that diesel tanks were not envisioned in the original design of the building. "It ended up with tenants who had diesels," Mr. Cantor said. "I know none of that was planned at the beginning."

According to floor plans submitted to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land on which 7 World Trade sat, the building complied with city fire codes, said Frank Lombardi, the authority's chief engineer. Those codes permit no more than one fuel tank with a capacity of 275 gallons or less on above-ground floors, he said.

Jerome M. Hauer, who was the director of Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management at the time the command center was opened at 7 World Trade, said several teams of engineers reviewed plans to open the office there. But no one ever mentioned any hazard associated with placing fuel tanks above ground, near a transfer truss, he said.

"There were a host of people who looked at this," said Mr. Hauer, who is now a managing director of the crisis and consequence group at Kroll Worldwide, a security consulting company based in New York. "We relied on their judgment."

Fire officials did at one point question the storage of large amounts of fuel well above the ground level, saying that one large tank for the mayor's command center, if ever compromised, might fuel a fire that would threaten the building.

The Sept. 11 draft report also has photographs and a description of debris collected from a previously undisclosed, multistory collapse within 5 World Trade Center, a nine-story office building that also burned on Sept. 11 but largely remained standing. The team has found that one specific type of bolted connection, called a column tree connection, that joined floor-support beams, failed in the heat of the fires, causing the four- story collapse in the part of 5 World Trade at the corner of Vesey and Church Streets.

Although no one died as a result of the collapses in 5 and 7 World Trade Centers, since both stood long enough to be evacuated, the team's findings are likely to lead to recommended changes in the way public and government buildings are constructed, much the way similar studies did after the Northridge earthquake near Los Angeles in 1994 and the Oklahoma City bombing.

The team is still deliberating on how tightly it can pin down the precise train of events that led to the collapse of the twin towers themselves. But until now, the collapse of 7 World Trade has stood as one of the outstanding mysteries of the Sept. 11 attack, since before then, no modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the United States had ever collapsed in a fire.

High-rise buildings are designed to be able to survive a fire, even if the fire has to burn itself out. The strategy is to ensure that the steel support structures are strong enough or protected well enough from fire that they do not give way in the time it takes for everything inside an office building, like furniture, to burn.

In major high-rise fires elsewhere in the country, such as the 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991 and the First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles in 1988, this approach has worked. The 1 Meridian fire burned for 19 hours, leaping from floor to floor and burning out as combustible materials were used up. But the fires at 7 World Trade Center raged mainly on lower floors and never burned out, and in the chaos of Sept. 11, the Fire Department eventually decided to stop fighting the blazes.

"What the hell would burn so fiercely for seven hours that the Fire Department would be afraid to fight it?" said one member of the investigating team.

According to the Port Authority floor plans, 275-gallon diesel tanks sat on the fifth, seventh and eighth floors and were fed through pipes from the larger tanks near ground level. The team member said that while the diesel fuel remains the most likely candidate for feeding the fires, it was still unknown whether there could have been other sources of fuel in the building, kept there by tenants like the Secret Service that have disclosed little of what their spaces contained.

The huge steel transfer trusses ran mostly through the fifth, sixth and seventh floors where the fires burned. The purpose of the trusses, which included zigzagging and horizontal members and were concentrated around the building's core, was to allow 7 World Trade to be built over two Consolidated Edison substations that already existed on that spot when the building went up in the late 1980's. Together the stations held 10 transformers, each about 35 feet high and 40 feet wide.

Using the trusses to avoid having vertical structural columns pierce the transformers, the building was constructed around them like a hen sitting on a giant egg.

"We had to do design tricks to accommodate the existing Con Ed facility," said Mr. Cantor, the structural engineer. "This building had an awful lot of transfers."

Transfer trusses are a well-tested technique and are used in countless high-rise buildings, as well as in bridges around the world. Engineers say that transfer trusses, for most buildings, present no extraordinary hazard. But if there is an explosion, earthquake or long-burning fire, they can present a problem.

In Oklahoma City, during the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building, a large transfer girder on the building's third floor gave way, helping to precipitate a progressive collapse that later analysis showed was responsible for most of the 168 deaths. After this attack, federal guidelines for buildings that would hold government agencies were changed, recommending that buildings be designed so that single-point failures did not cause a catastrophic collapse.

Videos of the 5:28 p.m. collapse of 7 World Trade lend vivid support to the truss-failure theory. Roughly 30 seconds before the building goes down, a rooftop mechanical room starts to disappear, falling into the building's core. Then a second larger rooftop room sinks. The building then quickly collapses.

Both rooms were above sections of the building held up by the trusses. Other video evidence shows fire concentrated in the floors containing the trusses and the fuel tanks.

Dr. John D. Osteraas, director of civil engineering practice, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, in Menlo Park, Calif., reviewed videos of the collapse, discussed it with other engineers and came to a similar conclusion; the fuel, the trusses and the fire brought 7 World Trade down. "The pieces have come together," he said. "Without the fuel, I think the building would have done fine."

Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall of WTC 7

March 2, 2002
Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall of 3rd Tower
By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON
New York Times

Massive structural beams that functioned as a sort of bridge to hold up the 47-story skyscraper known as 7 World Trade Center were compromised in a disastrous blaze fed by diesel fuel, leading to the building's collapse on Sept. 11, investigators have concluded in a preliminary report.

The tower was set on fire by debris from the twin towers and burned for about seven hours before collapsing in the late afternoon under previously unexplained circumstances. The analysis of its collapse is one of the first detailed findings by a team of engineers organized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers to understand the fate of all the buildings around the site.

As much as 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel was stored near ground level in the tower and ran in pipes up to smaller tanks and emergency generators for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's command center, the Secret Service's office and other tenants.

Investigators have determined that the burning fuel apparently undermined what is known as a transfer truss. The trusses, a series of steel beams that allowed the skyscraper to be built atop multistory electricity transformers, were critical to the structural integrity of the building and ran near the smaller diesel tanks.

A failure of the same type of structural bridge contributed to the collapse of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City when it was bombed in 1995. Federal guidelines for public buildings, created in 1996, warned of the dangers of such trusses in terrorist attacks.

"It's certainly right in the vicinity where the columns go into this transfer system," said a person knowledgeable about the investigators' draft report on the World Trade Center. "The rest of the building is built on top of the bridge."

While 7 World Trade Center, which stood across Vesey Street just to the north of the twin towers, was not formally a federal building, it did house crucial government offices that included the city's nerve center for emergency response.

The investigators said that their conclusions, combined with other findings about the failure and collapse of 5 World Trade Center, could prompt serious changes in the codes used in building construction.

The findings are in a draft report that has already been circulated among government agencies, and are based on videos made on Sept. 11, witnesses' reports, interviews with firefighters, evidence from the debris pile and structural analysis. Team members, who described many of the findings, cautioned that the conclusions on the collapse of 7 World Trade Center could still be modified as reviews proceed.

But Irwin Cantor, one of the building's original structural engineers, who is now a consulting engineer and member of the City Planning Commission, said the diesel-related failure of transfer trusses was a reasonable explanation for the collapse.

He said he believed that diesel tanks were not envisioned in the original design of the building. "It ended up with tenants who had diesels," Mr. Cantor said. "I know none of that was planned at the beginning."

According to floor plans submitted to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land on which 7 World Trade sat, the building complied with city fire codes, said Frank Lombardi, the authority's chief engineer. Those codes permit no more than one fuel tank with a capacity of 275 gallons or less on above-ground floors, he said.

Jerome M. Hauer, who was the director of Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management at the time the command center was opened at 7 World Trade, said several teams of engineers reviewed plans to open the office there. But no one ever mentioned any hazard associated with placing fuel tanks above ground, near a transfer truss, he said.

"There were a host of people who looked at this," said Mr. Hauer, who is now a managing director of the crisis and consequence group at Kroll Worldwide, a security consulting company based in New York. "We relied on their judgment."

Fire officials did at one point question the storage of large amounts of fuel well above the ground level, saying that one large tank for the mayor's command center, if ever compromised, might fuel a fire that would threaten the building.

The Sept. 11 draft report also has photographs and a description of debris collected from a previously undisclosed, multistory collapse within 5 World Trade Center, a nine-story office building that also burned on Sept. 11 but largely remained standing. The team has found that one specific type of bolted connection, called a column tree connection, that joined floor-support beams, failed in the heat of the fires, causing the four- story collapse in the part of 5 World Trade at the corner of Vesey and Church Streets.

Although no one died as a result of the collapses in 5 and 7 World Trade Centers, since both stood long enough to be evacuated, the team's findings are likely to lead to recommended changes in the way public and government buildings are constructed, much the way similar studies did after the Northridge earthquake near Los Angeles in 1994 and the Oklahoma City bombing.

The team is still deliberating on how tightly it can pin down the precise train of events that led to the collapse of the twin towers themselves. But until now, the collapse of 7 World Trade has stood as one of the outstanding mysteries of the Sept. 11 attack, since before then, no modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the United States had ever collapsed in a fire.

High-rise buildings are designed to be able to survive a fire, even if the fire has to burn itself out. The strategy is to ensure that the steel support structures are strong enough or protected well enough from fire that they do not give way in the time it takes for everything inside an office building, like furniture, to burn.

In major high-rise fires elsewhere in the country, such as the 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991 and the First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles in 1988, this approach has worked. The 1 Meridian fire burned for 19 hours, leaping from floor to floor and burning out as combustible materials were used up. But the fires at 7 World Trade Center raged mainly on lower floors and never burned out, and in the chaos of Sept. 11, the Fire Department eventually decided to stop fighting the blazes.

"What the hell would burn so fiercely for seven hours that the Fire Department would be afraid to fight it?" said one member of the investigating team.

According to the Port Authority floor plans, 275-gallon diesel tanks sat on the fifth, seventh and eighth floors and were fed through pipes from the larger tanks near ground level. The team member said that while the diesel fuel remains the most likely candidate for feeding the fires, it was still unknown whether there could have been other sources of fuel in the building, kept there by tenants like the Secret Service that have disclosed little of what their spaces contained.

The huge steel transfer trusses ran mostly through the fifth, sixth and seventh floors where the fires burned. The purpose of the trusses, which included zigzagging and horizontal members and were concentrated around the building's core, was to allow 7 World Trade to be built over two Consolidated Edison substations that already existed on that spot when the building went up in the late 1980's. Together the stations held 10 transformers, each about 35 feet high and 40 feet wide.

Using the trusses to avoid having vertical structural columns pierce the transformers, the building was constructed around them like a hen sitting on a giant egg.

"We had to do design tricks to accommodate the existing Con Ed facility," said Mr. Cantor, the structural engineer. "This building had an awful lot of transfers."

Transfer trusses are a well-tested technique and are used in countless high-rise buildings, as well as in bridges around the world. Engineers say that transfer trusses, for most buildings, present no extraordinary hazard. But if there is an explosion, earthquake or long-burning fire, they can present a problem.

In Oklahoma City, during the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building, a large transfer girder on the building's third floor gave way, helping to precipitate a progressive collapse that later analysis showed was responsible for most of the 168 deaths. After this attack, federal guidelines for buildings that would hold government agencies were changed, recommending that buildings be designed so that single-point failures did not cause a catastrophic collapse.

Videos of the 5:28 p.m. collapse of 7 World Trade lend vivid support to the truss-failure theory. Roughly 30 seconds before the building goes down, a rooftop mechanical room starts to disappear, falling into the building's core. Then a second larger rooftop room sinks. The building then quickly collapses.

Both rooms were above sections of the building held up by the trusses. Other video evidence shows fire concentrated in the floors containing the trusses and the fuel tanks.

Dr. John D. Osteraas, director of civil engineering practice, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, in Menlo Park, Calif., reviewed videos of the collapse, discussed it with other engineers and came to a similar conclusion; the fuel, the trusses and the fire brought 7 World Trade down. "The pieces have come together," he said. "Without the fuel, I think the building would have done fine."

BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost

The BBC announced the collapse of WTC nr. 7 in New York half an hour before it actually collapsed.

BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost
Pathetic five paragraph blog rebuttal does not answer questions as to source of report that Salomon Building was coming down, BBC claims tapes lost due to "cock-up" not conspiracy

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 27, 2007

digg_url = ‘http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.htm’; digg_title = ‘The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes of footage from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of “clairvoyance” in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.’; digg_bodytext = ‘The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11?’; digg_topic = ‘politics’;

The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.

Here is the BBC's response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement.

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down." If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

How do "chaos and confusion" explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened "unexpectedly" according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn't make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfotunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, "she doesn't remember" just doesn't cut it as an excuse.


BBC included a screenshot of yesterday's Prison Planet article in their brief response.

—————————————————————————————————————
The Internet leader in activist media – Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more – all for just 15 cents a day!
Click here to subscribe!
—————————————————————————————————————

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

We are asked to believe that the world's premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… "

So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC – what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.

If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This "error" translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein – I'm sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your "error." In addition, two seperate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the "error" that led to your correspondent reporting the building's downfall in advance?

BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost

The BBC announced the collapse of WTC nr. 7 in New York half an hour before it actually collapsed.

BBC Responds to Building 7 Controversy; Claim 9/11 Tapes Lost
Pathetic five paragraph blog rebuttal does not answer questions as to source of report that Salomon Building was coming down, BBC claims tapes lost due to "cock-up" not conspiracy

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 27, 2007

digg_url = ‘http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.htm’; digg_title = ‘The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes of footage from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of “clairvoyance” in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.’; digg_bodytext = ‘The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11?’; digg_topic = ‘politics’;

The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.

Here is the BBC's response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement.

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down." If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

How do "chaos and confusion" explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened "unexpectedly" according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn't make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfotunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, "she doesn't remember" just doesn't cut it as an excuse.


BBC included a screenshot of yesterday's Prison Planet article in their brief response.

—————————————————————————————————————
The Internet leader in activist media – Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more – all for just 15 cents a day!
Click here to subscribe!
—————————————————————————————————————

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

We are asked to believe that the world's premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… "

So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC – what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.

If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This "error" translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein – I'm sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your "error." In addition, two seperate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the "error" that led to your correspondent reporting the building's downfall in advance?

Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center

New York Times

Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center

November 29, 2001

By JAMES GLANZ

Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire.

Engineers and other experts, who quickly came to understand how hurtling airplanes and burning jet fuel had helped bring down the main towers, were for weeks still stunned by what had happened to 7 World Trade Center. That building had housed, among other things, the mayor's emergency command bunker. It tumbled to its knees shortly after 5:20 on the ugly evening of Sept. 11.

The building had suffered mightily from the fire that raged in it, and it had been wounded by the flying beams falling off the towers. But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country.

As engineers and scientists struggle to explain the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, they have begun considering whether a type of fuel that was inside the building all along created intensely hot fires like those in the towers: diesel fuel, thousands of gallons of it, intended to run electricity generators in a power failure.

One tank holding 6,000 gallons of fuel was in the building to provide power to the command bunker on the 23rd floor. Another set of four tanks holding as much as 36,000 gallons were just below ground on the building's southwest side for generators that served some of the other tenants.

Engineers and other experts have already uncovered evidence at the collapse site suggesting that some type of fuel played a significant role in the building's demise, but they expect to spend months piecing together the picture of what remains a disturbing puzzle.

"Even though Building 7 didn't get much attention in the media immediately, within the structural engineering community, it's considered to be much more important to understand," said William F. Baker, a partner in charge of structural engineering at the architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. "They say, `We know what happened at 1 and 2, but why did 7 come down?' "

Engineers said that here and across the country, diesel-powered generators are used in buildings like hospitals and trading houses, where avoiding power outages is crucial. Partly for that reason, Jonathan Barnett said, a definitive answer to the question of what happened in 7 World Trade Center is perhaps the most important question facing investigators.

"It's just like when you investigate a plane crash," said Dr. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. "If we find a weakness in the building or a deficiency in the building that causes that collapse, we then want to find that weakness in other buildings and fix it."

In many ways, 7 World Trade Center, built and owned by Silverstein Properties, was structurally similar to its towering cousins across Vesey Street to the south. The weight of the building was supported by a relatively tight cluster of steel columns around the center of each floor and a palisade of columns around the outside, in the building's facade.

Sprayed on the steel, almost like imitation snow in holiday decorations, was a layer of fireproofing material, generally less than an inch thick. Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration.

Most of three other buildings in the complex, 4, 5 and 6 World Trade, stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire.

Still, experts concede, in a hellish day, 7 World Trade might have sustained structural injuries never envisioned in fire codes. That day began with flaming pieces of steel and aluminum and, horribly, human bodies raining around the building.

With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch. It fell in the late afternoon, hampering rescue efforts and hurling its beams into the ground like red-hot spears.

Within the building, the diesel tanks were surrounded by fireproofed enclosures. But some experts said that like the jet fuel in the twin towers, the diesel fuel could have played a role in the collapse of 7 World Trade.

"If the enclosures were damaged, then yes, this would be enough fuel to explain why the building collapsed," Dr. Barnett said.

Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks. If further studies of the debris confirm the findings of extremely high temperature, Dr. Barnett said, "the smoking gun would be the fuel."

Others experts agreed that the diesel fuel could have speeded the collapse, but said the building might have met the same fate simply because of how long it burned.

"The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, "The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse."

Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat.

The fuel tanks were not the only highly flammable materials in the building. But while some engineers have speculated that a high-pressure gas main ruptured and caught fire, there was none in the area, said David Davidowitz, vice president of gas engineering at Consolidated Edison. The building was served only by a four-inch, low-pressure line for the building's cafeteria, Mr. Davidowitz said.

The mayor's command bunker, built in 1998, included electrical generators on the seventh floor, where there was a small fuel tank, said Jerome M. Hauer, director of the mayor's Office of Emergency Management from 1996 to 2000. That tank was fed by a tank containing thousands of gallons of diesel fuel on a lower floor, he said.

Francis E. McCarton, a spokesman for the emergency management office, confirmed that assessment. "We did have a diesel tank in the facility," he said. "Yes, it was used for our generating system."

The manager of the building when it collapsed, Walter Weems, said the larger tank sat on a steel-and-concrete pedestal on the second floor and held 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel. He said an even larger cache, four tanks containing a total of 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel, sat just below ground level in the loading dock near the southwest corner of the building.

"I'm sure that with enough heat it would have burned," Mr. Hauer said of the diesel. "The question is whether the collapse caused the tank to rupture, or whether the material hitting the building caused the tank to rupture and enhance the fire."

Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

"Any structure anywhere in the world, if you put it in these conditions, it will not stand," Mr. Marcus said. "The buildings are not designed to be a torch."

Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges

After nearly two years of steadfast silence, Silverstein Properties have finally responded to questions about what Larry Silverstein meant when he told a PBS documentary that WTC Building 7 was "pulled" in the late afternoon of September 11 2001. His answers strengthen the suspicion that WTC 7 was demolished by explosives.
Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges

Says "pull it" meant to evacuate firefighters, but there were no firefighters in the building

Paul Joseph Watson | January 5 2006

After nearly two years of steadfast silence, Silverstein Properties have finally responded to questions about what Larry Silverstein meant when he told a PBS documentary that WTC Building 7 was "pulled" in the late afternoon of September 11 2001.

Building 7 occupied a city block immediately north of the World Trade Center complex. Photos taken minutes before its collapse show small fires on two or three floors. Building 7 became only the third steel building in history before or since 9/11 to collapse from fire damage. The other two were the North and South towers of the World Trade Center.

Any building that was not owned by Silverstein Properties strangely remained upright.

Photo and video evidence of the collapse shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard ‘crimp’ in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent ‘squibs’ of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.

Even Dan Rather, commenting on the collapse for CBS News said that the collapse was, "reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

Click here for Alex Jones’ video analysis of the collapse of Building 7.

Questions about the highly suspicious nature of the building’s collapse remained comparatively muted until January 2004, when a PBS documentary, America Rebuilds, originally broadcast in September 2002, received attention across the Internet.

The documentary was made infamous for one comment made by Larry Silverstein on the subject of 9/11. Silverstein states, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna 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."

Click here to watch the clip.

We know that the term ‘pull it’ means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "…we’re getting ready to pull the building six." The term is industry jargon for planned demolition.

Click here to listen to the clip.

For the following year and a half the Internet and alternative talk radio was aflame with talk of Building 7 and Silverstein’s apparent admission. For many it is now the central issue of 9/11.

In June 2005 this website reported Silverstein’s only response to date. It was an ambiguous comment made to New York Post journalist Sam Smith. Silverstein told Smith that he "meant something else" by the "pull it" comment but mysteriously refused to elaborate any further.

Silverstein Properties have finally provided a detailed explanation of what Silverstein meant when he said Building 7 was pulled.

The State Department, as part of its pathetic efforts to debunk 9/11 research, has posted the response from Silverstein’s spokesperson Dara McQuillan on its website.

Bear in mind that the State Department said that China’s organ trade was a conspiracy theory even though the State Department itself put out a report on how China harvests organs from executed prisoners on a different area of its website.

The response reads as follows.

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

The State Department website then comments,

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

The insurmountable problem with this explanation of Silverstein’s statement is that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

 Some defenders of the official 9/11 story say that the term "pull" is not demolition lingo for "bring down by controlled demolition". However, the same PBS video in which Silverstein makes his admission, contains the following exchange:

 (unidentified construction worker): "Hello? Oh, we’re getting ready to pull building six." Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area."

But even this argument is beside the point. The building’s collapse had all the hallmarks of controlled demolition.

Silverstein’s explanation, after two years of stonewalling, that "pull it" meant to withdraw the firefighters is a lie. There were no firefighters in the building for hours before the building’s collapse.

So what did Larry Silverstein mean when he stated: "I said, ‘You know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, may be the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." He could not have meant that they should "pull" the firefighters from the building because there weren’t any firefighters in the building, at least according to FEMA, NIST, and Frank Fellini, the Assistant Chief responsible for WTC 7 at that time. And if he meant "pull the firefighters" then why did he say "pull it", with no reference to anything other than the building? The argument that "pull" is not used to mean "demolish" a building is belied by the other footage in the PBS documentary. And consider the timing: "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Could it really be possible that some (nonexistent) fire brigade was removed from the building and just at that moment ("then") the building collapsed? Is there really any doubt here about what Silverstein meant?

 The only reasonable conclusion is that Larry Silverstein’s statement is an admission that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, meaning that the official version of what happened to WTC 7 is false, and casting serious doubt on the official story that terrorists of a foreign origin destroyed the twin towers, as well as on the rest of the official account of 9/11. Note that this admission is a statement against Silverstein’s own interests (putting him at odds with the official version of events and potentially jeopardizing his insurance claims). Such statements are given great weight as a matter of law.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building’s collapse alone resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

How concerned should we be therefore that Silverstein Properties bought the lease from MetLife for Chicago’s Sears Tower in March 2004?

The length of time that it took Silverstein to respond to these charges and the fact that his eventual rebuttal does not correspond with the facts only gives us more grounds for skepticism.

A real, thorough, impartial, independent investigation of the collapse of Building 7 needs to take place and if the conclusions of that investigation are that Building 7 was professionally demolished, criminal charges need to be brought against those suspected of involvement.

———————————

Thanks to our anonymous reader who contributed to this article.

No Chance of Truth in WTC-7 Investigation

No Chance of Truth in WTC-7 Investigation

 
By Ed Haas

 April 19, 2006 ?  According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, on March 31, 2006, under solicitation number SB1341-06-Q-0186,  a fixed price purchase order has been awarded by the federal government to Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) of Albuquerque,  New Mexico to research and provide World Trade Center Building Seven structural analysis and collapse hypotheses.[1]  Specifically, the U.S. government  has contracted with ARA to:
 
Create  detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns  (at one or more locations) in World Trade Center Building Seven.
 
Because the federal  government has hired ARA to conduct this research, there is no chance whatsoever of truth in the WTC-7 collapse investigation.
 
When asked by  the Muckraker Report on March 20, 2006 if the federal government would be forthcoming if investigation conclusions regarding  the collapse of World Trade Center Building Seven indicated that it collapsed at freefall speed onto its footprint as the  direct result of a controlled demolition, Michael E. Newman, Public and Business Affairs spokesman  for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) said, “If that is the conclusion reached, that’s  what we will release to the public.”  When asked if the government’s  previous conclusions reached to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC-1, WTC-2) prohibited a “controlled demolition?  conclusion regarding WTC-7, Newman said, “They do not.”
 
For those of you new  to the 9/11 Truth Movement, a movement that by most accounts originated with Mr. Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com, and has expanded to organizations such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Physics 911 with millions of other Americans now convinced that there is a government cover-up  pertaining to the actual events of September 11, 2001, the collapse of World Trade Center Building Seven will prove  to be the government’s weakest link in its official account of how 9/11 unfolded.   This viewpoint is shared by millions of people and demonstrated by the fact that as of today, the U.S government has  yet to provide an official, public explanation of how WTC-7, a forty-seven story steel superstructure that was not struck  by an airplane, was the furthest distance from the Twin Towers, experienced minimal debris damage when the towers collapsed,  and only had miniscule office fires burning in it between the 6th and 12th floors, suddenly collapsed  at freefall speed onto its footprint at 5:20p.m. EST on September 11, 2001.  The  reason why the government has not yet released an official account of how WTC-7 collapsed is because there is no plausible explanation other than controlled demolition.
 
Unfortunately  for patriotic Americans that are devoted to the truth, the federal government cannot and will not ever admit that WTC-7 collapsed  as the direct result of a controlled demolition because if the government did make such an admission, then it would have to explain how and when the building was wired for demolition.  Answering that question would create the opportunity for the people who still, for the most part, believe the mainstream media and government,  to recall, reconsider, and reconcile the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers absolutely looked like controlled demolitions  also.  The government would not be able to prevent the people from appropriately  considering that if WTC-7 collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition, then maybe the Twin Towers were wired for demolition  too!  This is the government conspirators? greatest fear for virtually every policy, law, and action since September 11, 2001 has been based on the American public believing the government’s account  of what happen in New York, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania on 9/11.
 
It must be emphasized  that the 9/11 Commission failed to mention the collapse of WTC-7 in its 9/11 Commission Report.  Not one word about WTC-7 is found in the government’s first official account of 9/11.  What followed the 9/11 Commission Report was the research conducted by the National  Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).  It should be noted that NIST was  directed to provide a report that explained how, from a structural perspective, WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 collapsed.  The research and findings on how all three of these buildings collapsed was to be in a single report.  NIST started its investigation in August 2002.   However, when the draft of its final report came out in December 2004, WTC-7 was not in it.  According to NIST, it was decided to research WTC-7 separately.  Why?  The reason why NIST is delaying a public account of WTC-7 is because it cannot explain  WTC-7 in any fashion that will be taken seriously by any inquisitive and logically thinking person.
 
Eventually NIST  will release a final draft on the collapse of WTC-7 that will defy all logic and laws of physics.  It can only be assumed that the delay is purposefully intended to protect the existing, however gravely  weakened, official account of 9/11 from enduring further public scrutiny.  The  government’s account of 9/11 is against the ropes gasping for air as the 9/11 Truth Movement is pummeling it with hard-hitting  facts.  WTC-7 will be the knock out punch, and those in the federal government  that are involved in the 9/11 cover-up know it, which might explain why NIST has hired an outside contractor to take the public  heat when it finally can no longer delay the release of an official account of how WTC-7 collapsed.
 
So who is  this contractor, Applied Research Associates, Inc. and can this company be trusted to speak the truth, no matter what?  NIST reports that Dr. Steven W. Kirkpatrick, who is employed by Applied Research Associates,  Inc., will be the Program Manager for the WTC-7 collapse analysis.  Can Dr. Kirkpatrick  be objective in his research or is opinion already skewed?  It is highly unlikely  that Kirkpatrick will contradict the government’s “pancake theory” of collapse for the Twin Towers by reporting  the truth about WTC-7, which is that it obviously collapsed as the result of controlled demolition, because Kirkpatrick was  a NIST Contractor through his employer, ARA, during the NIST investigation into the cause of collapse of WTC-1 and WTC-2.  With Kirkpatrick leading the team that will provide the research and findings for  WTC-7, the integrity of the government’s investigation into how WTC-7 collapsed is already compromised.
 
Beyond the fact  that Kirkpatrick is a safe bet for the government and an obstacle to honest, unbiased analysis, NIST has taken further measures  to assure that no rogue scientist emerges from the inside and starts talking about “controlled demolition? in  regard to the collapse of WTC-7.  How did the government create this truth  guard?  Contractually, of course, that’s how.  Note that the government has retained ARA to:
 
Create  detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns  (at one or more locations) in World Trade Center Building Seven.
 
Contractually,  ARA is restrained to research likely modes of failure only for floors 8 to 46.  This is critical to the plan for the federal government to cover-up the controlled demolition that any footage of the  collapse of WTC-7 clearly demonstrates because controlled demolition most often occurs in the basement and first few floors  of a building, with gravity doing the rest of the work.
 
In December 1996  PBS science show, NOVA conducted an interview with Stacey Loizeaux, who is the daughter of Mark Loizeaux, and niece of Doug  Loizeaux ? president and vice-president of Controlled Demolition Inc.  Incidentally,  Controlled Demolition Inc. was the company hired by the federal government to remove all debris from the World Trade Center Complex after 9/11.  The purpose of the NOVA interview[2] was to provide the audience with information about controlled demolitions.  Here is an excerpt from the NOVA interview, which validates that the government is not at all interested  in a controlled demolition conclusion regarding the collapse of WTC-7.
 
NOVA:  I understand that you try to use the smallest amount of explosives possible.
 
Loizeaux:   Right.
 
NOVA: Can you explain why?
 
Loizeaux:  Well, explosives are really 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: Can you describe the prep work  that goes into dropping a building?
 
Loizeaux:  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 prep 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 different floors ? usually anywhere from two to six.  The taller the building  the higher 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?
 
Repeating  what Loizeaux said, “We only really need to work on the first two floors, because you can make the building come down  that way.”  So why isn’t ARA being asked by the government to conduct  analysis of the entire WTC-7 structure from the basement level to the top floor?  It’s  called cover-up and criminal conspiracy, if not mass murder.
 
Americans  simply cannot allow the government to get away with this great deception and criminal conspiracy.  If the government cannot be trusted, then it is time to rise up and abolish the existing government, and  institute a new government, a constitutional republic, in these United States once again.  Then, and only then, will the truth prevail and set us free.

[1] National Institute of Standards and Technology, Contracts, WTC-7 Structural Analysis and  Collapse Hypotheses, March 31, 2006, http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0186.htm, [Accessed April 17, 2006]
[2] PBS, NOVA, Interview with Stacey Loizeaux, December 1996, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html, [Accessed April 17, 2006] 

(*) Freelance writer  / author, Ed Haas, is the editor and columnist for the Muckraker Report.  Get smart.  Read the Muckraker Report.  [http://teamliberty.net]  To  learn more about Ed’s current and previous work, visit Crafting Prose.  [http://craftingprose.com]  
 

Silverstein Properties gained control of WTC on 24 July 2001

Silverstein Properties and Westfield win $3.2B World Trade Center lease

http://www.icsc.org/srch/front/200104270803.htm
International Council of Shopping Centers, 27 April 2001

Real estate developer Silverstein Properties, in a partnership with Los Angeles-based Westfield America, gained control of New York City’s World Trade Center yesterday by signing a 99-year lease worth $3.2 billion.

When completed this fall, the deal will put control of the largest U.S. office complex into private hands for the first time, and give Westfield America, one of the countrx’s largest mall owners, a major address to add to its roster of shopping centers.

Thursdax’s deal gives Silverstein Properties control of a 10.6-million-square-foot office complex, which comprises the 100-story Twin Towers, and two nine-story office buildings. The complex also includes a more than 400,000-square-foot concourse mall called the Mall at the World Trade Center. Silverstein already owns a 48-story tower built on land owned by the Port Authority, called 7 World Trade Center. Through a company spokeswoman, Silverstein President Larry Silverstein told SCT that its ownership of that building sparked great interest in buying the entire complex.

The World Trade Center was previously managed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

"This is a dream come true," he said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights."

Westfield will be responsible for leasing and managing the more than 400,000-square-foot concourse mall, which is part of the downtown complex. Previously named the Mall at the World Trade Center, the retail portion will now be called Westfield Shoppingtown World Trade Center, said Catharine Dickey, vice president of corporate communications for Westfield America.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Westfield has proposed adding between 150,000 and 250,000 square feet of retail space to the mall.

The mall’s sales per square foot are expected to be in the area of $900 by the end of 2001, according to Port Authority officials, making it one of the countrx’s highest-earning shopping centers.

"This is a special opportunity for us,”? said Westfield CEO Peter Lowy in a statement. "We look forward to putting our management, leasing and development experience to work at this premier property.”?

While the bid for the World Trade Center lease was made jointly with Silverstein Properties, the lease was broken in two during final negotiations. Westfield America will make lease payments only on the concourse mall ? separate from the payments that Silverstein will make on the office portion, said Dickey, declining to comment on the amount of the payments.

Silverstein was the runner-up bidder for the World Trade Center lease, and won the right to negotiate a final agreement after talks with the top bidder, Vornado Realty Trust, Paramus, N.J., broke off last month.

Officials at Silverstein declined to elaborate on its future plans for the World Trade Center.

$13 million Emergency Operations Center Opened 1999 in WTC 7

New York opened a $13 million Emergency Operations Center on Monday [in WTC 7]

June 7, 1999
Web posted at: 8:32 p.m. EDT (0032 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN) — The only U.S. city to be targeted in recent years by international terrorists has set up what it calls the nation’s leading anti-terrorist response center.

On Monday, New York opened a $13 million Emergency Operations Center. The 50,000-square-foot facility is in lower Manhattan, in a building right across the street from the World Trade Center, which Islamic militants bombed in February 1993.

The center, which will be staffed round-the-clock, will be where city leaders meet if there’s ever another man-made act of terror. It will be used for natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, heat waves and blackouts as well.

"The city is better prepared than it ever has been in its history," said Jerry Hauer, director of the center.

The facility’s command center is on the 23rd floor. Its walls are reinforced to withstand wind gusts of up to 160 miles per hour. It’s also bulletproof and bomb-resistant, with its own air supply, an 11,000 gallon water supply and three backup generators.

Despite its hardened shell, Hauer said the center would have been built regardless of terrorism threats.

"I think biological terrorism is a threat, but it’s not as great as we sometimes hear," Hauer said. But he adds, "This is not a bunker."

Still, Hauer says the new center means New York City is now ahead of the rest of nation in being able to handle terrorism.

"Particularly when it comes to biological terrorism, no city is where we’re at," he said.

The center was launched Monday with a 24-hour drill for a mock biological terrorist attack. Many city, state, and federal agency officials were on hand and the center earned high marks from at least one military leader.

"I think this is an excellent facility here," said U.S. Army Col. Robert Fitton.

New York is not alone is preparing for a possible response to a large-scale emergency. The Pentagon is helping 120 of the nation’s largest cities beef up their defenses against possible use of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. anti-terrorism spending will exceed $10 billion over the next fiscal year, a 44 percent jump in a year’s time.
 

Firefighters were told WTC-7 would collapse

WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW:  FIREFIGHTER SCOTT HOLOWACH, Interview Date: October 18, 2001

"We ended up back up on Vesey Street and West Street and just hanging out until tower 7 came down. After tower 7 came down, we went right to work over at tower 7 to put the fires out." – New York Times [Local]

WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW:  PARAMEDIC STEVEN PILLA, Interview Date: October 17, 2001

"Then it was about 5:00, because I was getting hungry. We were eating oatmeal cookies and watered-down Gatorade from the Salvation Army and the Red Cross…We walked back. We didn’t do any further because building number seven was coming down. That was another problem, to wait for building seven to come down, because that was unsecure. It was about 5:30 that building came down." – New York Times [Local]

 

WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW:  LIEUTENANT WILLIAM RYAN, Interview Date: October 18, 2001

"At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors."

 

Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o’clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we’ve got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there.

 

So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that’s when 7 collapsed. Then, basically, after 7 collapsed, I went over and told the Chief that — by then they had companies with handie-talkies, masks.

 

Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess.

 

I was at the ferry when I called, and I ended up calling her again at about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon from a position over here. I went in there to take a leak and I just looked around. I guess when we fell back for 7 to collapse I called her." – New York Times [Local]  

 

WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW:  FIREFIGHTER FRANK SWEENEY, Interview Date: October 18, 2001

"Once they got us back together and organized somewhat, they sent us back down to Vesey, where we stood and waited for Seven World Trade Center to come down." – New York Times [Local]

Interesting comments on Silverstein?s ‘pull it’ remark

Interesting comments on Silverstein’s  ‘pull it’ remark on WTC 7

September 23, 2005
Silverstein’s First Public "Pull It" Response

I just stumbled across the first real public response for Larry Silverstein’s "pull it" remark. It comes from the U.S. State Department’s Spreading Disinformation, I mean "Identifying Misinformation" website (paid for at taxpayers expense of course) posted on Sept. 16, 2005 that included in a rebuttal to, among others, a section about the WTC 7 from the new 9/11 conspiracy book, 9/11 Revealed…

    "The book suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which also collapsed on September 11, was intentionally demolished, citing a comment by the property owner that he had decided to “pull it.” The property owner was referring to pulling a contingent of firefighters out of the building in order to save lives because it appeared unstable."

It State Dept’s site posts a statement released by Silverstein Properties spokesperson, Mr. Dara McQuillan, on Sept. 9, 2005 that says the following:

    "Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

    In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

    Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001."

Then the USINFO site goes on to say…

    "As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building."

Just what I thought, he gives the "pull out the firefighters" response! "It" referred to "the contingent of firefighters"”?? Yeah right! If that was the case, Silverstein would have said "pull them out", not "pull it". No one misspeaks that bad. The word "it" clearly refers to the building (singular), not a "contingent of firefighters" (plural). How condescending that he would refer to a contingent of firefighters as "it".

Also, it’s already been reported that the FDNY never sent any firefighter "contingency" inside the WTC 7 and this order was made at 11:30 am…

    "With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch.

    Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons." – New York Times (11/29/01)

and then FEMA reported that the FDNY never even attempted to fight the fires in the 7…

    "In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.

    It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effective due to the limited water on site and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.

    WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." – FEMA (05/02)

So there is a conflict of facts here with the Silverstein spokesperson saying the Fire Commander called in the "afternoon" to say firefighters were attempting to contain the fires in the building and the news and FEMA reports saying the firefighters never attempted to put of the fires and had already been called back in the late morning and not "later in the day" as the spokesperson claims.

posted by Killtown @ 9/23/2005
At 7:45 PM, Anonymous said…

    If Silverstein meant that firemen should leave WTC-7 he would’ve said "pull out", or "pull back", not "pull it". (Also, reports indicate that there were no firemen in WTC-7 hours before the collapse.) Then, according to Silverstein, the firemen exited the building and it fell. Sure, all by itself. Right on cue. Of course.

Foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse

The Smoking Gun Building 7

FEMA Report, Chapter 8, page 7

“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time”

No Steel framed building has ever collapsed.

Even the steel framed buildings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were left standing

“A steel building survived fires in experiments with extreme temperatures beyond the range possible with jet fuel.” Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments). – Cardington fire tests

Yet, from the firefighter interviews and reports

File No. 9110256

Firefighter Brian Fitzpatrick

Interview Date: December 6, 2001

pp. 7-8:

“We heard a Mayday for everybody to get out of the building — no, I’m sorry, an urgent, three urgents, and we came out of the building. I’d say that was like an hour and a half, two hours later. We were then positioned on Vesey Street between North End and the West Side Highway because there was an imminent collapse on 7 World Trade , and it did collapse.”

File No. 9110502

Firefighter Edward Kennedy

Interview Date: January 17, 2002

p. 19:

“That was the only Mayday that I remember, and to tell you the truth, the only guy that really stands out in my mind that I remember being on the radio was Chief Visconti. I remember him talking and giving directions and this and that. But this is as the day was going on and, of course, there were so many transmissions going over. I remember him screaming about 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was was definitely going to collapse, they don’t know when, but it’s definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you’re away from it, that’s an order, you know, stuff like that.”

Lieutenant William Ryan Interview Date: October 18, 2001

pp. 15-16:

Fire alarm system disabled at 6:47 AM on 9/11

"The building fire alarm system was placed on TEST for a period of 8 h beginning at 6:47:03 a.m. on September 11, 2001."

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initiated a formal federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster on August 21, 2002.Active Fire Protection Systems”Fire Alarm Systems

[…]

Finding 2.25: The fire alarm system that was monitoring WTC 7 sent to the monitoring company only one signal (at 10:00:52 a.m. shortly after the collapse of WTC 2) indicating a fire condition in the building on September 11, 2001. This signal did not contain any specific information about the location of the fire within the building. From the alarm system monitor service view, the building had only one zone, “AREA 1.” The building fire alarm system was placed on TEST for a period of 8 h beginning at 6:47:03 a.m. on September 11, 2001. Ordinarily, this is requested when maintenance or other testing is being performed on the system, so that any alarms that are received from the system are considered the result of the maintenance or testing and are ignored. NIST was told by the monitoring company that for systems placed in the TEST condition, alarm signals are not shown on the operator’s display, but records of the alarm are recorded into the history file.