See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Why No One Could Have Predicted The Collapse Of WTC 7
Source:
http://infowars.net/
URL Source: http://infowars.net/articles/march2007/010307BBC_WTC7.htm
Published: Mar 2, 2007
Author: Steve Watson
Post Date: 2007-03-02 00:24:50 by robin
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 141
Comments: 15
Why No One Could Have Predicted The Collapse Of WTC 7 The BBC, instead of attempting to explain how it could have reported this, has attempted to both evade and cloud the issue. The truth is that no one could have possibly predicted the building would collapse and here's why. Aside from the fact that previous to 9/11 no steel framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire damage, Building 7, otherwise known as the Salomon Brothers building, was intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening the structural integrity of the building. In 1989 the New York Times reported on this fact in a story covering the Salomon leasing of the building which had been completed just two years earlier. Salomon had wanted to build a new structure in order to house its high-technology operations, but due to stock market crash in 1987 it was unable to. The company searched for an existing building that they could use and found one in Larry Silverstein's WTC 7. The Times reported: In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project. ''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need... MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station. The entire article can be read here. What this amounted to, as the Times pointed out, was that WTC7, specifically designed to be deconstructed and altered, became "a building within a building". An extraordinary adaptable and highly reinforced structure for the modern business age. This is of course also partially the reason why in 1999 the building was chosen to house Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's $13 million emergency crisis centre on the 27th floor. Remember that on 9/11 only eight floors of the building were subject to sporadic fires. The official NIST report failed to comprehensively identify how the building could have collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint given the damage that it had sustained. A follow up report due soon has been forced to take into account a hypothetical situation whereby explosives were used to demolish the building, primarily because every other explanation thus far has failed to explain how it could have come down. Furthermore, as has been thoroughly documented, building 7 was the furthest away in the WTC complex from the twin towers. Buildings much closer sustained massive amounts of damage from the collapse of the towers and did not come anywhere close to full scale symmetrical collapse. Building 7 now becomes the key to unlocking the 9/11 fraud. What was witnessed on 9/11 was a perfectly symmetrical collapse, with no resistance, of a steel-framed "Building within a building". A perfectly symmetrical collapse of a building that was designed from the ground-up to have entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity. We have an owner who let slip that the building was "pulled" and we have firefighters on video telling people to get back as the building was going to "blow up". We have the BBC reporting the collapse before it happened and a follow up desperate attempt to avoid the issue by claiming that it cannot verify anything because it has lost the entirety of its broadcast recordings from 9/11. Furthermore, the BBC continues to play dumb by responding to questions other the fiasco by intimating that it is being suggested that they were "in on the conspiracy". Here is the latest response we have received from the BBC regarding the matter after continuing to press them for an explanation: Hello and thank you for your email in reaction to claims made in an The notion that the BBC has been part of any conspiracy is patently What is ludicrous is that the BBC expects us to believe it has lost its tapes of the most important event of the 21st century. No one is suggesting BBC is complicit in any conspiracy, and its attempt to frame this issue in that way is a blatant attempt to make the questions that it has not answered go away. Why did the BBC report the collapse of one the most structurally reinforced buildings in New York before it collapsed and what was their source? In further developments more BBC video from the day of 9/11 has been unearthed in which a correspondent, within hours of the towers coming down, claims the reason for the collapses is because of their design. He then then provides blatantly false information about the designs to justify the statement, without referring to any sources and negating the fact that the towers had 47 massive central core columns. Was this another "cock up" on the part of the BBC or were they once again going off scripted information that was being spoon fed to the media? Certainly it is startling that the subsequent official FEMA report, after months of investigation, gave more or less the same explanation as to why the towers fell as is witnessed in this BBC news footage from just hours after the towers fell. As for the BBC's shockingly arrogant and dismissive "it was more than five years ago comment", as long as the truth continues to be withheld we will continue to target those who are aiding its suppression.
Building was specifically designed to have floors removed without collapsing
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, March 1, 2007 
This week has seen a cornucopia of news come pouring forth with regards to what happened to World Trade Center building 7 on September 11th 2001. The catalyst for this has been the discovery that the BBC reported the building had collapsed a full thirty minutes before it actually fell on 9/11.
Want to start your own blog or website, get the word out and support Alex Jones? Infowars.net offers
high-quality webhosting services at very competitive prices, and most importantly, with
infowars.net, privacy is paramount! We don't sell the names of our customers to marketing
firms or the government. Click here for more info.
Given all this information it is quite clear to surmise that if you were going to "predict" the collapse of any building in the WTC complex following the destruction of the towers, building 7 would have most certainly been BOTTOM of the list.
article published online.
ludicrous. We reported the situation as accurately as we could, based on
the best information available. We cannot be categorical about the exact
timing of events that day - this is the first time it has been brought
to our attention and it was more than five years ago. If in the chaos
and confusion of that day our correspondent reported that the building
had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been a genuine error.
BBC World Customer Relations
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: robin, *Alex Jones* (#0)
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Funny, I predicted it. I watched the attacks while standing in a bank, and thought, those buildings are going to collapse.
"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.
It didn't collapse, it was pulled by the owner, for a hefty insurance benefit, BTW. IIRC, Mr. Silverstein made more than a *b*illion dollars in settlement money, this on a mere $100 million investment, much of that borrowed. Your trust in this government continues to astound me :)
oh, really? are you inside larry silverstein's head?
Damn! You should be hired by the NYFD as their collapse clairvoiyant, because none of the thousands of firefighters on the scene foresaw the collapse.
Excellent posting. Thanks.
so the fukk what
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Building 7 really is key to understanding 9-11. How could the NYFD or the media or anyone else have predicted the imminent collapse of Building 7 and pulled people out of it? And yet they did. An anchor in an American News outlet said, live on 9-11, before building 7 collapsed, that it would collapse soon. The people in building 7 were evacuated; that's understandable, but the prediction that it would collapse? Impossible to make that prediction. So it was blown up. There is no other explanation, per Occam's razor. But then a host of other questions arise about who planted the explosives? Well, they couldn't have been planted on 9-11 after the planes hit the buildings, because that would have been tactically impossible. So they were planted beforehand. What explanation have we been given for this? Nothing. What explanation have we been given for the assumption that building 7 was "about to collapse"? I haven't seen one. We have to ultimately come to the conclusion that someone deliberately set up explosives to blow up building 7. Which means that someone knew in advance what was going to happen on that day (other than the hijackers) and did nothing to prevent it. This is not conspiracy theory or paranoid theory anymore, it is simple deductive, rational theory. Someone, for whatever reason, deliberately murdered 2,000 plus people in New York on September 1, 2001.
...do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
I agree, it's the government's explanation that is the conspiracy.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush I had a feeling they were going to demolish them. (/sarcasm)
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Wasn't the collapse of the first tower a shock to anyone watching it who wasn't in on it? I was shocked.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
In a related note which is of interest here, BBC World was (I’m reasonably sure) being run by a woman called Dame Pauline Neville-Jones in 2001. BBC World is also not funded by the British state, which many people won’t know, but is funded by corporate donations and other “sponsors.” Anyhow, Dame Pauline once headed the Joint Intelligence Committee in the UK, a body which brings together the heads of the various British intelligence bodies with political leaders. She went from intelligence, to running the BBC World Service (radio) from which BBC World was spun off in 1995. Since leaving the BBC World Service, she has taken up a role on the board of QinetiQ (a corporation spun off from the UK defense establishment, from the privatization of which the Carlyle Group recently made a killing). She is also on the advisory board of the Intelligence Summit – where she joins Richard Perle, Kenneth Timmerman, Alrezi Jafarzadeh (the source of the U.S. “intelligence” on Iranian nuclear weapons programs). A bit more on that:19-10-2004 http://www.spinwatch.org/con tent/view/496/9/ Dame Pauline Neville-Jones has quit the BBC board of governors a year early, after her links with defence firms supplying US forces in Iraq were exposed earlier this month. Greg Dyke blamed Neville-Jones for helping to force him out as director-general following the Hutton Report. However, a spokeswoman for the BBC has denied that the departure of Neville-Jones is linked to her involvement with Qinetiq. The calls for her to stand down came from backbench Labour MPs, including former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle and Llew Smith. Smith said: "It is completely inappropriate that someone so senior in the BBC should be leading a firm making huge profits from the misery caused by the invasion of Iraq.")
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
QinetiQ demos a simulated squadron of self-organizing UAVs Nov 29th 2006 British security and military contractor QinetiQ has just come out with what it's calling the first system of self-organizing UAVs. In a recent demo, an autonomous BAC1-11 twin-jet plane (pictured) controlled a separate group of simulated UAVs to carry out a simulated ground attack on a moving target. During the trial run, a human crew was inside the lead plane, making sure that there wasn't any disasters, simulated or otherwise. When combined with the company's previous inventions that include the Millimeter Wave scanning device and that tiny GPS tracking unit (we're guessing that could be put into some sort of projectile), all outfitted onto a whole UAV squadron -- we're pretty sure that'd make for one heck of a recon unit.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Adios troll!
God is always good! They were sacrificed to Satan. That's one of the reasons you can make out a horned devil in the smoke, Satan was smiling.
God is always good!PING!
#2. To: robin (#0)
#3. To: YertleTurtle (#2)
Funny, I predicted it. I watched the attacks while standing in a bank, and thought, those buildings are going to collapse.
#4. To: YertleTurtle (#2)
Funny, I predicted it.
#5. To: YertleTurtle (#2)
I predicted it.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#6. To: robin (#0)
#7. To: YertleTurtle (#2)
#8. To: robin (#0)
#9. To: bluedogtxn (#8)
This is not conspiracy theory or paranoid theory anymore, it is simple deductive, rational theory.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#10. To: robin (#0)
(Edited)
He then then provides blatantly false information about the designs to justify the statement, without referring to any sources and negating the fact that the towers had 47 massive central core columns.
#11. To: robin (#9)
#12. To: robin (#0)
I found this little nugget posted today on 911Blogger:
#13. To: All (#12)
http://www.engadget.com/tag/qinetiq
#14. To: YertleTurtle (#2)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#15. To: bluedogtxn (#8)
Someone, for whatever reason, deliberately murdered 2,000 plus people in New York on September 1, 2001.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest