Question:
Is it possible that the WTC 1 2 and 7 were controlled demolished after being struck by the planes?
2007-04-13 04:14:24 UTC
Is it possible that the WTC 1 2 and 7 were controlled demolished after being struck by the planes?
Eight answers:
2007-04-18 16:45:38 UTC
Only two of the buildings in your question were struck by aircraft.

WTC 7 was not hit by any aircraft and sustained less damage than the other buildings in the World Trade Center Complex (WTC 3, WTC 4, WTC 5 &WTC 6) that were damaged from parts of the Towers that were ejected during their collapses (also controlled demolition).



I can go on a "Dennis Millerish rant" here about my opinions about it. I think that it would be better for you to look at the 9/11 videos. They can be downloaded for FREE at the following website: http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm



However, I do want to point out a few points about WTC 7 that are scattered amongst the other footage and research material.



1- In the 1990s the taxpayers of NYC paid millions of dollars to convert the 23rd floor of WTC 7 into a "Command Center" where the mayor and all the Department Chiefs could meet to monitor the activities during emergencies. It has been said that the 23rd floor even had its own water, food, electricity and oxygen supply.

It should be noted that Mayor Guiliani did not go to the fortified Command Center that day. Did he even try to get into it ? There is a clip in one of the videos of Mayor Guilani telling people to run because the tower is about to collapse.



2- WTC 6 received so much damage that the steel shell needed to have explosives planted and it was pulled about a week later. The clip of the construction worker using the term "pull" to set off the charges after they were planted in the shell, is in at least one of the many videos.



3- In a PBS interview Mr. Larry Silverstein told the interviewer that he had been talking to the Chief of the Fire Department and the decision was made to "Pull-it" at 5:30 in the afternoon on 9/11/01.



4- The NIST report that was published by the US Government agency contains language to the effect that means "at this time we don't know why WTC 7 collapsed.



5- The Official 9/11 Commission Report did not include the collapse of WTC 7 at all. As if it did not happen.



6- The US Government had their NY offices for the CIA, FBI, SEC, IRS where documents for corporation scandels and fraud were being investigated in WTC 7.



7- The only buildings that were destroyed that day were on the property of The Port Authority of NY & NJ (PA) and all of the buildings were destroyed.



8- At the PA website you should be able to locate a September 1998 press release that announces the first landing of a commercial airplane using the new technoligy called Global Positioning System at Newark International Airport in NJ.



9- Then look for the press release two weeks later that announces a "Historic Shift" in the Boards Planning and that the World Trade Center Complex would be put on the open market.



9a) It was common knowledge that the Towers were consider white elephants, asbestos problems, losses of millions of dollars per year.



10- In July 2001 the PA sold the remaining structures to Mr. Silvestein and a company affiliated with the Westfield Group.



11- Mr. Silverstein had hired an insurance agent to calculate the amount of insurance that would need to be carried to cover and possible damages. Mr. Silverstein made a decision to insure the WTC complex for about half the amount that his insurance agent recommended.



12. Mr. Silverstein also demanded that the policies specifically mention terrorist. At that time the risk of terrorism damage was so small that it had been automaticaly included in the insurance packages.



12a) If the building had been rigged in advance for controlled demolition isn't that insurance fraud ? To the best of my knowledge the NYC fire department doesn't plant explosives in burning buildings.



13- The insurance policy was issued after the alledged attacks the language that was in the binder was argured in Court. Some of the companies involved in the complex package were still negotiating the wording.



14- Mr. Silverstein brought the insurance companies to court after the initial awards were made (without an investigation) and was able to convine the court that because there were wo planes that they were two separate occurances. So the court doubled his claim.



15- The insurance claims were filed and the insurance companies were in Court prior to the end of 2001. The court documents that I read had the cause given as the same fairy tale that the Official Report arrived at over 2 years later. WTC 7 was not involved in those claims and the NEW WTC 7 is at least complete enough for them to advertise the space available and are negotiating leases for space.



16- The federal government agency known as the EPA announced that the air was clear when the "Dust" was really pulverized concrete, people, asbestos and other pollutents that have made people die from having breathed it. There are organizations trying to get aid for the victims.



I'll stop here. I colud continue but I said there were only a few points and that you should look at the videos. Believe me this is not all.

As you can probably tell I have gone over this a little bit and inserted one paragraph. I apoligise for any spelling and or punctuation erros. The spell check is still running.
segnosaur
2007-04-13 10:31:11 UTC
I have to agree with Carl M... its just not possible that they were brought down by 'controlled demolition'. The act of setting up a building for controlled demolition normally takes weeks of work by dozens of people, and ends up leaving lots of clues behind (holes in walls, cables, etc.) In a building with thousands of workers, SOMEONE would have noticed something prior to 9/11.



Also, if the explosives were planted prior to 9/11, how exactly would they have survived the fires? Especially in WTC7, which had fires throughout the building; any demolitions would have been subject to fire and high temperature, not exactly the most stable of situations.



One of the other answerers to this question has brought up some points which have been debunked before, but I thought I'd debunk them here:



* Of course, why were the bomb sniffing dogs that are always at the buildings removed from the buildings 2 weeks before 911.



Simple... they weren't. There were EXTRA dogs on duty that were removed (actually due to a bomb threat made long before), but that does not mean they were all removed. There were still dogs on duty in the building.



* Why did the buildings power down for a week before 911, which has never happened in the history of the buildings.



Again, simple answer... there was no 'power down'. All of the rumours of a power down come from ONE individual, who's claims have never been verified. (And given the number of companies in the buildings, you would think more would notice if the power were cut.) Secondly, even that claim didn't say the power was down for a week... the person claimed that it was down for only part of the weekend, on SOME floors on ONE of the towers. So, even if you believe the person claiming there was a 'power down', it didn't affect all areas where explosives would supposedly be placed.



* WHY DID DICK CHENEY TAKE THE SHOOT DOWN ORDERS OUT OF NORADS HANDS 2 MONTHS BEFORE 911 SO THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ATTACK WITHOUT HIS COMMAND.



Simple... it wasn't. The tactics for intercepting planes had not changed prior to 9/11. Any assumption that they had is just unconfirmed conspiracy nonsense.
2016-10-22 05:12:45 UTC
probable not, there could have been too lots of people who might have commonly used approximately that. by using now one in all them may well be paid vast money by using some tabloid to tell the certainty. in my opinion the autumn of WTC a million & 2 replaced into via a minimum of a few thing worse than being under pressure out -- inferior shape. the invention Channel has accomplished quite a few specials on what occurred while the planes hit. to boot the damages from the planes, which replaced into extensive, the sturcture itself had inferior layout, loss of fireplace retardant on the steel and different flaws because of the builder not spending adequate money. What the hijackers did replaced into an atrosity, yet to have the homes fall the way they did because of the fact somebody did not choose to spend money -- it is unforgiveable.
2007-04-13 04:36:16 UTC
Sure! They Knew The Hit Was Coming That Day For Several Weeks. The Hijackers Were Patsies For Larger Government Agenda Of Fear And Control!!!
Carl M
2007-04-13 04:24:28 UTC
No. It is not possible. A controlled demolition requires a careful engineering study of the structure, long periods of planning and simulation, removal of asbestos and other hazardous materials, meticulous placement of the charges, appropriate notice and permits, and eventually the demolition event itself.



There wasn't time to perform the engineering studies and place the charges.
freedom f
2007-04-13 04:26:40 UTC
Of course, why were the bomb sniffing dogs that are always at the buildings removed from the buildings 2 weeks before 911.



Why did the buildings power down for a week before 911, which has never happened in the history of the buildings.



WHY DID DICK CHENEY TAKE THE SHOOT DOWN ORDERS OUT OF NORADS HANDS 2 MONTHS BEFORE 911 SO THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ATTACK WITHOUT HIS COMMAND.



I GUESS THE MEDIA WON'T ASK THOSE QUESTIONS EITHER, THE FAMILIES WNAT THEM ANSWERD.



WWW.PATRIOTSQUESTION911.COM
dumbuster
2007-04-13 17:38:33 UTC
No the unions would not allow it!Also the illegals were not able to deal with the explosives.ARRRGH ,I getting a migraine from these morons!
sam simeon
2007-04-13 04:28:51 UTC
No, that's silly.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...