WTC 7 'Pulled' By Silverstein,
FDNY - Were Towers
'Pulled' Too?
From Judy Singer
Las Vegas
1-18-4


Does this suggest pre-positioned explosives in the Towers? Hi Jeff - While surfing the net, I came across this information as shown below. It appears that the WTC Center buildings had 'been pulled' which is why the World Trade Center buildings collapsed. I heard Mr. Silverstein's admissions on my computer audio file. There have been so many conflicting reports. However, I do believe this report substantiates why the WTC buildings finally collapsed, as sad as it is!

PBS Documentary: Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC 7

By Jeremy Baker

In a stunning and belated development concerning the attacks of 9/11 Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001. This admission appeared in a PBS documentary originally aired in Sept. of 2002 entitled "America Rebuilds". Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive and costly investigation into the curious collapse of WTC 7. The study specifically concluded that the building had collapsed as a result of the inferno within, sparked, apparently, by debris falling from the crumbling North Tower. In the documentary Silverstein makes the following statement; "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. [This can be heard in the audio file http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3 . Thanks to Sir Dave 'tmo' Soule for transfering this from the video to an MP3 file. "America Rebuilds", PBS Home Video, ISBN 0-7806-4006-3, is available from http://shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/.] Mr. Silverstein's comments stand in direct contradiction to the findings of the extensive FEMA report. They even negate Kevin Spacey's narrative in the very documentary in which they appear; "WTC 7 fell after burning for 7 hours." If it had been generally known that the building was "pulled" wouldn't Mr. Spacey have phrased it that way? In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context. [This can be heard in the audio file http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt2.mp3 taken from the video.] This shocking contradiction is yet another curious twist in a disturbing series of events surrounding the "collapse" of WTC 7, and the WTC complex in general. Among these is the fact that, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever resulted in a collapse. On 9/11 three such anomalies were alleged to have occurred. Those who argue that the towers were vulnerable in their top-heaviness and verticality cannot then explain the collapse due to fire of WTC 7, a broad based, 47-story steel-framed building. There is also the fact that most of the structures destroyed by falling debris were directly under the twin towers, and none of them caught fire. WTC 7 was not only a full city block away from Tower 1 but WTC 6 stood directly between the two buildings and certainly absorbed most of the damage. In addition, WTC 7 suffered a strangely thorough and complete collapse, leaving only a leveled lot where it once stood. Although it was a much smaller structure, WTC 6's 8-story carcass stood for months afterwards, even after being gutted by Tower 1. There's also disturbing correlations between the collapse of WTC 7 and the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. Both buildings were constructed using the same bridge beam system that, in WTC 7's case, allegedly contributed to its demise. But more importantly WTC 7, like the Murrah building, housed high-level government offices including the FBI, CIA and the Secret Service. WTC 7 was also the storage facility for millions of files pertaining to active cases involving international drug dealing, organized crime, terrorism and money laundering. WTC 6, also known as the Customs House building, housed the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture and Labor and yet another Murrah building tenant, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. WTC 7 was also the location of a kind of a doomsday bunker (a $15 million project of Rudy Giuliani's), a command post from which to operate in case of a total infrastructure breakdown. Building 7 had apparently been bullet proofed and reinforced to withstand hurricane force winds and attacks of all kinds, a fact which makes its alleged fatal vulnerability to falling debris all the more puzzling. Mr. Silverstein's comments imply that he and the FDNY threw together an expert demolition job in the space of a few short hours on the afternoon of 9/11. This revelation is staggering enough considering its blatant contradiction to what has been, all along, the official cause of the "collapse." But the fact that the building was buried under tons of debris and consumed in flames at the time makes his comments all the more baffling. There's a compelling theory that bombs had been planted inside the twin towers designed to complete the job the hijacked jets had begun. A handful of seasoned professional firefighters and demolition men have commented on how neatly and evenly the towers collapsed. Mr. Silverstein's bewildering statements in "America Rebuilds" give an exponential boost in credence to this claim and, in a more terrifying light, loan credibility to growing suspicions that the attacks of 9/11 may have been an inside job. http://www.epilot.com/sdspartners/searchpage_bluedesign.asp?affid=bravenet
Comment
From Jean T. Gordon
1-19-4 Hi Jeff - You may remember the transcript that I sent you about a pre-existing 'demolition plan' for the Twin Trade Towers. I have been actively pursuing the development of that set of documents into a 'corroborated' story. I have received help from Michael @ From the Wilderness and Jeff King, another important 9-11 cover-up researcher. I think you should have one of them on your program immediately! I would like for you to 'add this comment' to the end of your story, something that I believe to be just as important as Mr. Silversteen's 'smoking gun,' -itself. This appears in the context of my narrative, and in some ways 'certifies,' these events. I will quote that now, but my story will not be ready for days: Credit: (withheld) "There I was, fantastically excited to look down on the steel framing, as Building #7 was finally 'topped out.' To my right, stood one of the project architects, who said; (then turned, and left the room without looking any of us in the eye): "Building seven. -The building that never should have been built." In my 25+ years exposure to all sorts of architects, I have never heard such a damaging comment, not to the process, the people, nor the conflicts involved in achieving our life's crowning achievements. It was like seeing a mother with newborn child, as she quietly ended it's life. Comment From Tom Gordon Systems Engineer 11-19-4 Jeff, I just sent this note to Jeff King: Hi Jeff - The news about Mr. Silverstein's admission is now about to enter overdrive! Here's a rough sketch of the areas of this structure that most alarm me. You would have had to de-sheath the walls and cut, (or selectively implode,) each of these "weird sections" of the framing in order to do the implosion, as it was filmed. Did they find whole 'boxes of space' in the rubble? Certainly not! ...So, you're telling me you and your collegues commonly decided to "pull" the building, and planted [these] explosive charges while it was burning? Impossible! Look at the framing plan. I can only say it was the weirdest array of junk I had ever seen. I studied it for over an hour, because I was dying to learn how 'big city' -architects pulled off building these grand properties. I've been through over 1,000 commercial buildings during construction and I was intently curious about CAD, and the stresses at play in this environment. "Maybe it's just me" I kept thinking as I tried to figure out WHY they had used such an impossibly difficult construction approach. It looked like Tijuanna at it's finest.

Approximate footprint of structural 'scaffolding' required, as per the 1989 Plan, by Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, PC. Consulting Engineers, with Emery Roth Architects. *Largely found to be 'untenable,' the plan required (est.: 1 1/2) times the rentable square footage of the property, for decommission scaffolding. In the case of a typical 60 story urban skyscraper, this would not have been an insurmountable problem, however the environmental impacts here were enormous. These included; terminal deconstruction and reconstruction roadway access, and disposal of ( ? ) tons of debris. A large 'secured' zone that would have restricted, or limited access for thousands of area workers. Plans included provisions for temporary structures to attach to the adjacent buildings, buttressing over some and adjoining to others. Each adjacent property had been "thoroughly studied" to assess their (current) load capacities as well as full engineering studies for each supporting structure, so required. "Full sets of plans" to those buildings had been provided to the working group, from a wide array of sources. To my knowledge no final architectural renderings were done, although I saw plans for the proposed 'bridge ways'. This benign point is rather important since it indicated that the 'plan' was being marketed as such, as a street-level 'zoning' issue. Unlike the Empire State, which floats on rockers, WTC was anchored to bed-rock with vertical members that were calculated to flex, causing an annoyingly top-heavy feel, in high winds. I had suspected that the 'electrolytic effect' of the aluminum members exchange with the steel trusses was a major issue. This was categorically denied by the engineer that I asked, although he said it was- "an important potential concern throughout the project." Another said: "The buildings are literally shrinking." They concluded that; "The maximal 'safe' life of these buildings was just 60 years, indicating they would reach their peak potential value shortly before reaching their 1/2 life, in about 2025." To estimate the total financial 'liability' to the building owners, this group concluded that the property inherently required about (5._?) x the average 'maintenance budget' of any 'standard urban office tower.' Access to such information would have severely impacted the subsequent property value and leasability for its owners. 1-18-2004 TSGordon Architectural Photographer A/V Systems Engineer penmanchip@hotmail.com