Conspiracy theory debunkers...

[squealpiggy]

Larry Silverstein ordered the building be pulled(controlled demolition).

"I remember getting a call from the 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 then we watched the building collapse."

1. "Pull it" is not a demo slang term for blowing up a building.
2. Even if it was, Silverstein isn't a demolition guy.

Do you know what and how much is involved in controlled demolition? Takes a lot of planning and preparation, including putting explosives in correct places. More than likely, I'm guessing the fire chief recognized the lost cause, recognized how many men he had already lost, and decided to get his men the f out of there. That's my guess.

That's exactly it.

That said, it seems odd that the furthest building away from the twin towers is the one that caught on fire, none of the other WTC buildings (3,4,5,6), which are a lot closer, didn't catch on fire. But, its always easy to question things in hindsight. Sometimes, **** just happens, and that's the way the cookie crumbled.

Building 6 was utterly destroyed. You can clearly see the destruction on the picture above.

[Danny Gunz]

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE...d%208-8-06.pdf

By: Brent Blanchard director of field operations at Protec Documentation Services, a company that documents the work of building-demolition contractors

Here's a summary

Assertion 1: "The towers collapses looked exactly like explosive demolitions"
Protec Comment: Blasting engineers understand that building implosion work best when forces of gravity are maximized... This was not the case in the collapse of Tower 1 and 2. Examinations of videos do not show failure at the lower levels. Rather they clearly show failure at the location where the airplane struck.

Assertion 2: "But they fell down straight in their own footprint"
Protec Comment: They did not, they followed the path of least resistance, and there was alot of resistance... When the impact floors of both towers failed, the upper sections did not simply just tumble onto the streets below, rather they tilted while simultaneously falling downward... As we know significant amount of debris rained down around the surrounding blocks... These facts indicate that a relatively small amount of structural support debris actually landed straight down within the towers' footprint, making this event notably dissimilar to a planned demolition event.

Assertion 3: "Explosive charges can be seen violently shooting out the sides during the collapse."
Protec Comment: No, air and debris can be seen pushing violently outward which is natural and predictable effect of rapid structural collapse.

Assertion 5: Thermite was found in the wreckage and debris showing melted steel.
Protec Comment: We have come across no evidence to support this claim.

Assertion 7: Building 7 was not hit yet still collapsed, this must have been due to explosives.
Protec Comment: If explosives were used within WT7 then seismographs within the general area would have detected the activity in the ground vibrations... Video and photographic evidence show substantial falling debris hit building 6, and 7.

Assertion 8: A steel framed building has never collapsed due to fire, yet three collapse on one day... explosives must have been used.
Protec Comment: No, it actually means three building collapsed due to fire (and violent external forces) in one day... The fact is, many steel structures have collapsed due to fire. And as with those failures, the collapse of all three buildings on 9/11 involved specific structural conditions. Each failure showed characteristics dissimilar to the other two, and in no case have we come across of evidence of explosives being present or affecting any of those conditions.