Revisiting Word Trade Center 7

Revisiting Word Trade Center 7

This as many may know is the final advertisement for the 9/11 truth campaign by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.

It very aptly highlights what many perceive to be the smoking gun of 9/11, the collapse of the Solomon Brothers Building, or World Trade Centre 7 (WTC-7). This building was not hit by any plane and it was only the third “sky-scraper” to have seemingly imploded in history, only hours after the first two that also fell that day. The 9/11 truth movement point to the collapse of WTC-7 as being perhaps one of the biggest question marks of all the events that took place that Tuesday summers day back on September 11th, 2001.

Those who ask these questions have been branded as “conspiracy theorists” or “truthers”. I see them as sceptical individuals seeking the truth, who are right to ask the questions about what happened that day. They quite rightly ask probing questions and seek out the truth of what happened that day. I see myself as one of these people, I seek the truth regarding 9/11, not what the media tells me happened or even what the conspiracy sites tell me what happened but rather I seek the truth of what happened that day.

To seek out this truth is an ongoing process I have not yet found all the answers I doubt i ever will but I am taking it one step at a time. Therefore what follows in this article are my findings based on my own research into 9/11 specifically regarding WTC-7. To be clear, this is not about debunking the claims made by either those in the alternative media or the claims made by the government. Rather this is about seeking answers the questions at the heart WTC-7 such as; how did the building fall, why did it fall, did anyone stand to gain from its collapse and looking at many of the claims made by the “truthers” and the "official story".

(NOTE: This is a very long thread, it is based on lots of open minded research, because this is so long however i respect that this may put some readers off and therefore i have included a summary at the end of this thread).

Building World Trade Center 7

Construction on WTC-7 began in 1983 after
Larry Silverstein’s property development corporation won the bid to develop and lease the final world trade centre building in 1980. The construction of WTC-7 presented a number of problems for the designer, Emery Roth and Son’s, primary because Silverstein wanted to build a building bigger than was originally intended. The building was built above a Consolidated Edison electrical substation (built in 1967) that provided electricity to most of lower Manhattan. When the substation was built the foundations were also laid for a future 25 story building to be constructed on top. However Silverstein had grander plans that called for a wider 47 story building and this presented a number of difficulties for the architects.

The main difficulty faced with Silberstein’s ambitious plans in the final design of the building was that the layout for the supporting columns did not match up with the pre-existing foundations laid at the substation. This required a series of complex gravity transfer columns and girders , the most significant of these being the three interior gravity column transfers between floors 5 to 7 in addition to a number of other vital supports such as two-story belt trusses between floors 5-7 and between 22-24. In total WTC-7 was made up of 81 supporting columns, 58 perimeter columns with 24 interior columns making up the “core” rectangle and the remaining three columns 79,80 and 81 made up the three largest as they provided the supports for the long spanning floors on the east of the building and were critical supports for the building. A fuller explanation of the exact schematics can be found through some wider reading online (NIST NCSTAR 1-1).

The end result was a modernist steel/concrete skyscraper with a trapezoidal footprint and red granite facade measuring 173m with 47 stories and a total office space of almost 2 million square meters. Construction was finally completed in 1987 (which actually makes WTC-7 one of the shortest lived skyscrapers in history) however in 1989 the east mechanical penthouse was added and during the 1990’s upper floors underwent refurbishment to facilitate the Solomon Brothers exchange floor.

On that Tuesday Morning the following tenant’s had rented office space:



Overall it is believed that somewhere in the region of 8000 people worked in WTC-7, most of these people would have worked with many of the financial institutions that worked with in the building such as Salomon Brothers (who had 64% of office space). Yet it is also important to highlight some of the smaller tenants such as the Secret Service had two floors in the building that they occupied and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Department of Defence (DoD) who all sheared the twenty fifth floor.

Amongst its other occupants included the New York City’s Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management (OME) located on the 23rd floor which scanned the emergency frequencies of New York 24/7 ready to respond to any emergency that might present. In addition to this it also meant that on the morning of 9/11 there was a 6000 gallon tank full of diesel for the OME emergency generator located on the 7th floor and a 9000 gallon tank of water to support OME in times of crisis, and a crisis was most definitely looming. That morning OME was about to be tested like never before, this was the command center that was to be charged with directing any emergency response and the man in charge was OME Director Richard Sheirer (the man behind the Mayer) with his staff of about 72 seasoned fire-fighters and police officers who were about to be faced with the largest rescue operation in history


The Morning of 9/11/2001

On the morning of 9/11 at 0647 the fire alarm system for WTC-7 was switched to “test” as such for the next 8 hours the system would ignore any fire alarm from within the building. This is where the first point of contention is raised by conspiracy theorists, who quite rightly question if this was really just a coincidence or if there was something more sinister behind it.

According to NIST’s June 2004 report:

"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."

What is interesting to note is that at no point is this mentioned in the final 2008 NIST report into WTC-7 (although it is in NIST NCSTAR 1-9). Some have questioned if this testing of the fire alarm system was part of the grander WTC-7 conspiracy. They would argue that the testing of the fire alarm system is a significant part of the winder conspiracy.

I do not believe it’s significant, while yes it does raise an eye brow it is not significant when looked at in the context of events that took place a few hours later. Additionally I fail to see any benefit it would have to any would be puppet masters to have the alarm shut off. Furthermore it would not have really mattered either way because most of the people working in WTC-7 evacuated after the first plane hit the North Tower at 0846 and footage of later that day inside WTC-7 a alarm can be heard.

Besides this with the fire alarm being on test for routine maintenance everything was normal inside WTC-7, people were heading into work to their offices with the OME, the CIA, the IRS and so on. Its interesting to note that one of those who was not heading to WTC-7 that day was the OME director Richard Sheirer who was in a meeting at city hall discussing new plans for a memorial.

It seemed then that on the morning of 9/11/01 in WTC-7 everything was reasonably normal right up until about 0845 when...

America Was Attacked!

At 0846:40 on September 11th 2001 Mohammad Atta plunged American Flight 11 into the North tower (WTC-1). Almost instantaneously the OME inside WTC-7 swung into action.

Richard Sheirer received a telephone report from OME command in WTC-7 to report urgently to the command centre as a small aircraft had hit the North Tower. Upon stepping out of City hall Sheirer recalls when he first saw the North Tower he realized that this was a much bigger crisis than the telephone call had alluded to. Therefore Sheirer rushed to the North Tower where he met up with the FDNY had set up a command post. Upon arrival he liaised with the OME again to ensure the emergency operations center had been set up which they confirmed. Only minutes after entering the North Tower at 0903 Richard Sheirer reports hearing a massive explosion. Sheirer then got in touch with OME command on the 23rd floor of WTC-7 who informed him that a second plan had hit the South Tower and furthermore they had reports that a third plane was heading to lower Manhattan.

Sheirer in his statement to the 9/11 commission states that:

Almost instantly after the south tower had been hit. I contacted the EOC to confirm that Air support was on its way to New York. At that time EOC informed me that there were still panes unaccounted for that may be heading to New York. I relayed this information to the Command post in the North Tower lobby. At the same time, OEM evacuated EOC. The rest of World Trade Center 7 had been evacuated earlier, but after a report of a possible third plane, we had to get our people out.

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 states that by 0944 the OME on the 23rd floor had been completely evacuated stating that:

At approximately 9:32 a.m., after a report of a third aircraft heading into the city, a second order was given in the OEM office to evacuate the WTC 7 facility. A number of personnel stayed in the OEM office and continued to work. Again, at approximately 9:44 a.m., following the news that the Pentagon had been attacked, a Deputy OEM Commissioner verbally ordered the complete evacuation of WTC 7.

By 0944 WTC-7 was empty. Almost.

Because not everyone got that message..

The Curious Case of Mr. Jennings and Mr. Hess


Two of those heading to the OME didn’t get that message and their story would eventually go down in the history of the 9/11 truth movement as one of the most significant events that day. The testimony that Barry Jennings gave to Loose Change would prove to be a controversial one that appears to support many of the conspiracies regarding WTC-7.

Barry Jennings worked as the Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. On the morning of 9/11 he and another man, Michael Hess, of New York Cities corporation council were rushing to the OME on the 23rd floor of WTC-7. Both the men agree that when they reached the OME on the 23rd floor it was empty as such they then proceeded to exit the building heading down the stairs and when they reached the 6th floor (Jennings said 8th in his initial interview) they were stopped in their tracks when the stairway collapsed. As such both men retreated to the 8th floor were they smashed windows and called for help and were subsequently rescued.

Shortly after their rescue Jennings gave this interview.


NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (pp 298) it was later stated when interviewed in 2004 that:

As all of the emergency responder restructuring operations were underway, three people became temporarily trapped inside WTC 7. Two New York City employees had gone to the OEM Center on the 23rdfloor and found no one there. As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs, the lights inside WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At that point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase. When they got to the 6floor, WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers (at an unspecified location) came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the floor, broke out two windows, and called for help. Fire fighters on the ground saw them and went up the stairs.

From here on however things become very confusing because of Jennings’s later relocation of events. In 2007 Barry Jenning’s conducted a interview for Dylan Avery’s documentary “Lose Change” which has since been released and made public, this interview is seen as many as being the smoking gun of WTC-7 and it has been the subject of much debate.



I don’t know how many times I have watched this interview, but I have came to realize something, when you really break this interview down it makes no sense what so ever. Jennings starts of stating that he received a phone call to attend the OEM just after the first plane hit being told it was a small aircraft (consistent with other reports).

When asked when he arrived at the OME he states he arrived just before the second plane hit (at 0903), he claims at this time the OME and EOC (Emergency operations command of the OME) was empty at this time. This however is inconsistent with other reports already highlighted that prove OME was not empty until 0944 so this must mean either Jenning’s is lying or mistaken. But there are other errors, Jennings goes on to claim that when he and Mr. Hess established that no one was there he made some phone calls and was advised to leave, so he and Mr. Hess took to the stairs to exist the building. Mr. Jennings states that when he reached the 6th floor he felt a powerful explosion beneath him that forced him and Mr. Hess to retreat to the 8th floor where he smashed out a window and yelled for help.

When asked if this explosion could have been caused by the first tower collapsing he says no because when he smashed out the window he “looked one way and it was there looked again and it was gone”. There is one big problem with this because evidence would suggest that Jennings got to OME after 0944, he then made a few phone calls and then left heading down the stairs. If we assume that this time period, between the OME evacuation and Jennings getting to the sixth floor was say only about 15 minutes (at the most because he must have arrived after 0944) then that would pace Jennings on the 6th floor at exactly 0959.... The same time the South Tower collapsed. However in the NIST report it is said that it was caused by the North Tower (collapsed at 1028) but what this demonstrates is that the timeline Jennings gave Loose Change does not add up with the facts or his testimonial given to NIST.

What would seem more logical and fitting with the time line is that Jennings and Hess arrived at some point after 0944 but before 0959 at the OME. When they got their they found it empty as it had been evacuated so went to use the lift to leave. At that point, 0959, the south tower collapsed causing the elevator to fail. As such they both attempted to leave WTC-7 and may or may not have made/received phone calls at this time. They got to the 6th floor of WTC-7 at 1028 with the North tower collapsed hitting WTC-7 and that’s what stopped their decent.

Regardless of how questionable this interview is following his interview Jennings requested that Loose Change withdraw his interview and he done another interview for the BBC documentary “The Third Tower”. In this interview there are several key differences for example Jennings claim’s that rather than him making the phone calls as he does in the loose change video someone phoned him and told him to leave. He also says that the stair case beneath him collapse rather than saying it was a explosion. Furthermore he also states that loose change misrepresented him when he said he was “stepping over people” and is admitted that he saw no dead bodies in the ruined lobby of WTC-7 when he was rescued.

So not only does the evidence Jennings’s gave to NIST and the BBC no corroborate the interview he gave to Loose change and the fact that his timeline does not add up to other evidence but in a interview from the other man ,Michael Hess, he provides further information that questions Jennings loose change interview.



In his interview he is quite clear that this collapse of the stairway he experienced was caused by the collapse of the North Tower damaging WTC-7. Again this is consistent with what was initially reported by both men to NIST.

Essentially when the Barry Jennings loose change interview is looked in the face of all other evidence it does not appear to hold any value and should be disregarded as “proof” of anything. It would appear that what really would have happened is what their interviews with NIST and the BBC suggested happened. They got to OME just before WTC 2 collapsed, waited about for a bit, left down the stairs and at 1028 got stuck after WTC1 fell on WTC-7.

Sadly, Barry Jennings’s died August 19th 2008 shortly before the release of the final NIST report of Leukaemia (which is also the subject of conspiracy).

7’s HIT!

As stated above at about 09:58 the south tower crumbled to the ground (the cause of this is not in the remit of this article) and when it did WTC-7 took a knock. At almost the same time, 09:59, a triage center set up in the Lobby of WTC-7 was evacuated and shortly after at 10:00 that a alarm began to whale throughout WTC-7 indicating everyone should evacuate. Note that despite the Alarm being on test one alarm did sound in WTC-7 that day.

It was also some time shortly after this that the following footage was taken, which shows the WTC-7 lobby shortly after the South Tower collapsed. The video shows some evidence of damage to WTC-7 although its all superficial, broken windows, lots of rubble and so on. What is also worth noting is that there are no bodies as Jennings testimony to Loose Change implies.



What went on between 10:01 and 10:28 in WTC-7 is unclear we can presume that around this time Jennings and Hess were making their way down the stairway we also know there was another gentleman who was inside WTC-7 searching to ensure the building was evacuated and that at some point during this time frame the triage centre must have been evacuated.

Then at 10:28, this happened.



As the tower fell WTC-7 got caught up in the massive debris cloud that attacked the south side of WTC-7 causing massive damage (which will be discussed in more detail later)


As the huge debris cloud cleared, as early as 11:00 Police officers reported seeing fires within WTC-7. It was also at this time that about forty members of the FDNY arrived to deal with some of the fires in WTC-7 and to address the damage to the building. Throughout the building they reported seeing damage and isolated fires however after about 20 minutes inside the building they were called out again. At about 11:30 another fire chief was assigned the task of tackling the blaze at WTC-7 however established that the water mains to the building had been cut off and as such the sprinkler system on the lower floors was inoperable as were the fire hydrants and no attempt the extinguish these fires was ever made. Because of this they pulled back form the building and note that at this time they saw the fires spreading throughout the building.

At approximately 13:00 members of the FDNY along with a member of the OME again entered WTC-7 to assess the damage the building had sustained inside. They note that the lobby was relatively damage free however the further into the building they got the more apparent the damage became. This damage includes finding elevators blasted out of their shafts beyond which they reported seeing a massive gash in the south side of the building between floors 6 and 9. They also report seeing damaged columns and the building creaking as well as fires raging in the floors above them. At one point they reported to NIST hearing a loud noise that concerned them so much they left the building along with a police officer they ran into who reported fires throughout the building.

Therefore at around 13:30 the fire chief in charge of WTC-7 recommended to his superiors that they should halt all efforts to save WTC-7 and put in a collapse exclusion zone around the building because they believed that it could potentially collapse. According to Danny Nigro

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn’t lose any more people.

yet others have claimed there may have been more behind this decision..

Pull it!

During an interview in 2002 for the PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, Mr. Silverstein said this about the fate of WTC-7 on 9/11:

"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 we watched the building collapse."

This one comment has been interpreted as some members of the 9/11 truth movement as Silverstein ordering the FDNY to bring down the building in a controlled demolition. Laterally Silverstein published a statement on this quote saying that:

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.

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.

So according to Silverstein what he meant by "pull it" was he meant pulling the remaining contingent of firefighers in the building.

Yet If the truthers are to be believed on this one then Larry ordered the FDNY to bring down the building, which automatically assumes that the FDNY were in on this whole conspiracy in some way, which of course they deny. For this interpretation of events to be believed then it would mean that the FDNY would have to have had control over the demolition of the building. The FDNY are not in the demolition business nor are they going to be party to some guys insurance fraud. Furthermore I don't see why, why not just let it burn which it would have done anyway and then have to be demolished at a later date.

In addition to this another Report into the events of 9/11 looking at claims made by 9/11 truthers by a group of demolition experts had this to say about Silverstein's "pull it" comment.

We have never, ever heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to “pull” the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement.

So if you think about what he is saying it would seem to make much more sense to assume that he was talking about the fire-fighters rather than pulling the building because the idea that the FDNY would be in on Silverstein demolishing WTC-7 just doesn't seem to add up.

There are always going to be some who think that Larry actually ordered the FDNY to blow up WTC-7, but I honestly just don’t quite get this claim.

The Damage.


Regardless of Silverstein's comments, stated above the fire-fighters at WTC-7 advised that a efforts to save WTC-7 be halted and that they pull away from the building, this order was made final at about 14:30 however it is important to remember that at no point was any real attempt made to extinguish the fires in WTC-7.

Because of this and because of the damage sustained form the falling buildings WTC-7 tool a lot of damage particularly to the south facade. It is unclear what exact time this footage was taken but it does quite clearly show the fire’s that were raging in WTC-7 (note: its quite blurry at first but about a minute in it clears up)



This video clearly shows the fires raging in the building but that is the North facade of the building that did not take a direct hit of the North Tower the exact time this was taken at is unclear. Then there is also this video which shows the damage the the south side of the building however most of it is obscured by the smoke billowing out from the south facade and the dust from the collapse of the other two towers.



These images also show the extent of the observable fire anyone of which would have been a major incident for the FDNY.



This image (left), allegedly shows the floors that had all sustained significant fire damage. According to official reports these fires were raging inside WTC-7 uncontrolled with no attempt being made to get the under control for hours. Some did eventually burn out however, these are just the fires that were observed inside the building that day. The image shows that there were at least some 10 or 12 inferno's burning throughout the day in WTC-7 on multiple floors and this was in addition to the structural damage the building had sustained.


This massive damage sustained to WTC-7 is reported by FDNY personal who are quoted by NIST as reporting the following.

There was a 10 story gash in the side of building 7. The South-West corner of the building was taken out when Tower 1 fell

This statement is supported by further photographic evidence of the building taken that day such as this photo.



And the damage to the south facade of the building is backed up by another fire-fighter quoted as saying

You could see were the North Tower was and we looked back at 7 WTC, it looked like someone ripped a big gouge out of the building. It looked like a big chuck of it was torn out right here in this corner, ripped right out, the south west corner. Yes, and I remember when the dust cleared and I looked back at 7 WTC, there was a huge gouge

Unfortunately because of smoke billowing form WTC-7 and dust from the collapse of the towers it is almost impossible to get a good image of what the south facade of WTC-7 looked like however all reports form eyewitnesses report that it was severely damaged. It is clear then that WTC-7 was burning, reports suggesting multiple major fires on as many floors, reports the building was “creaking”, evidence of major structural damage to the south west portion of the building and also this statement form a fire fighter

Early on we saw a bulge in the southwest between floors 10 and 13, and we had to put a transit on that, and we were pretty sure she [WTC-7] was going to collapse.

Again this is consistent with Other Reports that indicate that Fire-fighters and engineers thought that WTC-7 was at a high risk of collapse.

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post.

This contributed to the collapse exclusion zone being put around WTC-7 at 14:30 which stopped all work on the rubble pile of WTC-1. Eventually this information seems to have been picked up by the media that spawned yet another conspiracy.

The BBC Report

As the day went on, the Media began to get information that the fire-fighters were reporting that WTC-7 was on fire and was starting to look like it was going to collapse. Eventually this video was shot at 16:10 on CNN.



Then at 16:54 (other reports have said it was closer or after 17:00) this was reported by Jane Standley



The Solomen Brothers building and WTC-7 is the same thing, this video then clearly shows that over 20 minutes before the BBC said that WTC-7 had collapsed. As such many truthers have claimed that this is further evidence that there was a nefarious conspiracy behind the fate of WTC-7. They allege that this was a scripted report that the BBC mistakenly broadcast the story prematurely. The fact that the BBC lost the tapes of this only compounded the suspicions of the truthers however the tapes have since been found.

However the BBC have since responded to such claims stating that

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.

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.

Additionally the BBC after an investigation released this video in which even Dylan Avery says he doesn’t really think much of this “cock-up”



Yet even with the BBC’s explanation of this the conspiracies continue.

From a logical stand point I can find no reason that whoever was behind any conspiracy to blow up WTC-7 would bother informing the BBC and other media outlets of this before it actually happened. It just doesn’t add up. Why would they inform reporters of this before they actually blew up the building there is no need for it. Why not just have the building blow up and let the reporters just pick up the story then and run with it.

As such I cannot say that the BBC’s early reporting of WTC-7’s demise was anything other than a embarrassing mistake. The Fire-Fighters and engineers on the ground were reporting that it was looking like it could collapse so they put up the exclusion zone and it’s instability was being reported elsewhere in the media which all points to this just being a mistake by the BBC.

Anyway with that said 20 minutes or so later.....

7 FALLS!



This video above shows at 17:20 WTC-7 crumbling, This is where the conflict between the official story and the truthers really kicks in. So far in this thread we have seen that Jennings Loose change interview doesn’t really hold much merit, neither does Silverstein’ s “pull it” comment just like the media reports that the building was going to fall are really that significant as. However it is at 17:20 that the conspiracy theories really start to show some credibility upon first inspection, this looks like free-fall. Exactly how the building collapsed like that is now going to be examined looking at the various theories.

So first lets actually look at this collapse in detail, not the cause of the collapse but rather what we can observe from the collapse. The collapse itself is initiated by firstly by the east mechanical penthouse collapsing as column 79 fails.



This happens obviously because the floors beneath the the east penthouse have some how been taken away.

Aboout 7 seconds after the fall of the East penthouse a "kind" is visible in the outer facade of WTC-7 as the rest of the building starts to collapse.



And then the building falls to the ground like so...



and we end up with a pile looking like this.



So what can we draw from these observations, well firstly we can say with out doubt that the collapse of the building was not symmetrical first we have the collapse of the east penthouse, then there is the visible "kink" in the building and as it falls it appears to by falling at a backwards angle. So its defiantly not a symmetrical collapse.

The second thing we can establish is how long it took to collapse.

Based on observations it would seem that if we take the collapse of as shown in the video below it would seem that at the very least it would have actually taken WTC-7 13 seconds to collapse. It might also be worth mentioning that for 2.25 seconds WTC-7 fell at the speed of gravitational free fall indicating no resistance below.



As well as what is observable from the destruction of WTC-7 it is also pertinent to look at what eyewitnesses there on the day had to say of its collapse had to say about what happened. For example there were many eyewitness News anchors who said it "looked like a contorted demolition". This statement was then backed up by European demolition expert Danny Jowenko when speaking about WTC-7 he had this to say.


However since then Others for the world of controlled demolition have came forward and have had this to say

Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse. As one eyewitness told us, “We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn’t know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to that building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went.”

So explosive demolition experts who witnessed the fate of WTC-7 for themselves have dismissed the notion of controlled demolition.

Finally the last thing that we can ascertain regarding the idea of controlled demolition is the debris pile, many Truthers have stated that:

The building collapsed in free fall time in its own footprint.

Now we already know that the building did not fall at free fall speed but did it collapse in its own foot print? well for it to do so then it would have to have fell perfectly into its own perimeter, so did it?

well lets look at what the photographic evidence has to say.



This picture clearly shows that it did not fall within its own footprint as we can clearly see
the debris spread out onto the street.



And again this picture above shows parts of WTC-7 up against another building, this wouldn't have happened if it had collapsed into its own footprint.

So we can say that the collapse was not symmetrical, we can also safely say that it did not fall at gravitational free fall (well other than those 2.25 seconds), we can also say that eyewitness explosive experts did not see any evidence of contorted demolition and we can now also say it did not collapse into its own footprint . But the big question at the very heart of this article is how did it collapse, what actually caused this building to crumble to the ground the way that it did, based the observations made so far we can rule out conventional controlled demolition

But what about something, Unconventional, could it be that something else other than traditional explosives brought down WTC-7?

The Thermite Debate

This is the daddy of the 9/11 truth movements theories that WTC 1, 2 and 7 where brought down by a unconventional controlled demolition using a thermitic materiel known as "nano-thermite". This theory came into the public eye thanks to a article written in 2005 by Dr. Steven Jones in which he said that

I maintain that these published observations are consistent with the use of the high-temperature thermite reaction, used to cut or demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting.

Please keep in mind this was published in 2005, it was not until 2009 that Jones published his “proof” of thermite. In his 2005 work it is quite clear that he was basing his assumption of Thermite on others observations. Overall this piece of work by Dr. Jones is wholly underwhelming he makes a couple of other errors such as claiming that WTC-7 fell in about 6.5 seconds when this false as we have already seen

Because of his theories after a very long year Jones’s employers at Brigham Young University (BYU) put him on paid administrative leave in October of 2006. They stated that their reason for this was due to Dr. Jones increasingly speculative research that had not gone through the proper scientific venues. In addition to Jones claiming that Thermite had been used to demolish the towers on 9/11 his other "speculative" work included a paper about how Jesus Christ had visited ancient America. Eventually however Dr. Jones reigned from BYU.


But there was something else Jones said in his controversial 2005 paper, he said that he...

I would very much like to see an analysis of the elemental composition of the metal, and could do this myself if a small sample were made available according to scientific courtesy. Any reader who knows of chemical analyses or even photographs of this molten metal found below the rubble piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is invited to speak out and contact the author

Some people picked him up on this offer and rather than providing him with a few pictures they went one better, they provided him with actual dust they had collected on 9/11 and provided him with samples so he could test out his hypothesis.

Jones received five dust samples from people who had gathered the dust shortly after the towers collapsed from various places around Manhattan. These people then basically left the dust in a bag up in their attic or somewhere until about 6 years later they read about Jones and provided him with their dust samples.

Armed with these samples in 2009 Dr. Jones (et al) published their findings from the analysis of the dust samples in their paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal which is part of the Bentham Science group of journals. Now not to bore everyone with the science but Dr. Jones found what he was looking for, he found red/gray chips which he says have the chemical composition of thermite (he calls the red portion of the chips unreacted thermite) and he also discovered Iron/aluminium spheres in the dust which supports the suggestion that thermite was present in the dust. He then claims that this is evidence of Thermite being used on 9/11 but goes on to argue that super “nano-thermite” was used that could have been “painted” on to the steel and cut right though it in quoting another paper discussing the highly experimental nano-thermite in 2000.

So there is a jump between someone doing experiment in a beaker to Jones saying that this could have been used to bring down the world trade towers but Jones doesn't seem to bothered by that



Rather Jones argues that he found nano-thermite in the dust of the world trade center and he goes from finding that to saying that nano-thermit incendiary devices (the gel) were used to demolish the world trade center buildings, including WTC-7. An important point to note is that just because Jones found evidence of thermite in dust samples does not mean it was used to destroy the buildings it only proves it was present in the dust and there is also the very probable possiblity that he just found some sulpher, because it was there.

Another interesting point to raise about these findings is that after he published this paper he then had a accompanying documentary “Hypothesis ” throughout this documentary Jones repeats statements saying he didn’t know what to expect when he looked at the results of the dust samples. But in 2005 he said he believed there was thremite used, then in 2007 he starts testing them and finds his thermite but all way through this documentary he is saying “i didn’t know what to expect”... hmmmm.....

Anyway

There are several massive flaws with Jones findings, to start with anyone who is familiar with academic writings know that a good measure of the validity of research can be determined by the paper it is published in. Bentham open journals who published Jones work claim to be peer reviewed, claim to be, but they’re not.

After suspicions about their “peer review” system one researcher used a computer program to generate an “Accademic Paper” and submitted it to Bentham open for publication, it was just utter gibberish, but it was published and passed the “peer review”. For Jonse’s work to be published then in this journal rather than adding weight to his findings it actually makes them look a bit silly. And on top of that following the publication of Jones et al publication in the journal the editor of “the open chemical physics journal” quit over it because she had not been informed of its publication and disapproved of it.
This video provides a fantastic explanation of just how dubious this very publication was.


But that’s not the only problem, nor is the fact that he can’t actually prove where his samples came from but even if you think about his own results it makes no sense. In the paper Jones states that 0.1% of the sample was found to have these red “unreacted thermite” chips, that means based on that sample for every kilo of dust 1 gram would be unreacted thermite. The whole point of the thermite would be to undergo a reaction and melt through the steel, well that what Jones would have us believe, yet at the same time also seems to argue that loads of it didn’t react?. He expects us to believe that loads of this extremely highly reactive thermite did not ignite?

In another inconsistency he argues that this super “nano-thermite” would be in a gel form, so it was a gel yet he has all these solid little red/grey chips with unreacted nano-thermite?. In yet another inconsistency Jones received 5 samples but only tested 4, the reason he cites for this is because the owner of the fifth sample didn’t want o be named, so rather than calling him Mr. X, Jones just omitted this sample completely form the paper. Doesn’t add up to me, and not only that but other more robust science looking at 9/11 dust after Jones work arrived at a different conclusion

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminium particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite

Or to be put simply while this research did say that it was indeed possible that the red side of the chips may have been termite, the other side was carbon steel and also failed to find any elemental evidence of thermite. They debunked Jones claims who has also refused to shear his dust samples with anyone else for testing.

This is consistent with other research looking at assessing the dust from the destruction of the world trade center’s also did not find any evidence of thermite or other explosives such as the US Geological Survey who were called in shortly after 9/11 to analyse the dust. They found lots of similar chemical elements as Jones did but they don’t seem all that shocked to find them, Sulphur is used in building materials for example.

By far the biggest problem with Jones claim is that thermite cant melt steel, National Geographic proved this in their documentary, they took a whole load of thermite and tried to cut steel with it and failed. Thermite does not cut steel!



However, since then this video has appeared on line:



Clearly shows that Thermate can cut steel, yes that right Thermate, not Thermite!

Jones found no evidence of Thermate, Thermate uses Sulpher (which he did find) and Barium Nitrate (which he did NOT find) to increase the thermitic effect of the reaction additionally the video clearly shows that thermate causes lots of noise, something that is not evident prior to the collapse of WTC-7. So while yes this might demonstrate that thermate can cut steel it does not prove that the thermite that Jones claims to have found in WTC dust could cut steel. There is no evidence of thermate in the 9/11 dust because there is no evidence of barium nitrate in the WTC dust presented by Jones. No barium nitrate, no Thermate.

So, lets get back to WTC-7, clearly thermate could have theoretically been configured to cut through the steel columns however no one has found any evidence for the existence of thermate in WTC-7 dust. Additionally there is no evidence in the photographic history as we cannot see any of these huge flashes that thermate and thermite both create nor is any explanation given as to how they could control this incredibly volatile substance.

There is so much more about this "Thermite debate" that does not add up, for example Jones refuses to hand his samples over for further independent testing, and further more if he does have this proof why has he not handed it over to the proper authorities. And surly, if you had found this ground breaking evidence you would at the very least publish it in a more well known Journal rather than the rag it was originally published in.

In short there is zero evidence to support any claims that Thermite (or indeed thermate) was used to bring down WTC-7

The Official Story

Before getting into the whole of the official version it is perhaps prudent to address a common point of contention of 9/11 truthers who raise this question

why was there no mention of Building 7’s collapse in The 9/11 Commission Report?

Link

First of all anyone who tells you that the 9/11 commission makes no mention of WTC-7 has clearly never read the report because it is mentioned several times in the context of being the command center of OME. What is true however, is that the report does not discuss the collapse of WTC-7, as such many truthers attempt to suggest that this is somehow significant.

It’s not, the 9/11 commission report was not a technical report like NIST and FEMA it was a investigation into the terrorist attacks themselves, how they happened, why they happened, the emergency response (including OME) and making future recommendations. The collapse of WTC-7 did not fit within this report there is no reason for the 9/11 commission to bother getting into a discussion about WTC-7. It is not evidence of any kind of cover-up, besides WTC-7 ‘s collapse is covered in other reports.

Such as....

FEMA

FEMA along with the American Society for Civil Engineers took the lead in the first investigation into the collapse of WTC-7. They had access to the building site itself (all be it limited due to safety concerns) and assessed the rubble of the towers and conducted their investigation before NIST. The report into WTC-7 is very interesting and does provide lots of useful information however they do not provide any solid conclusions rather they argue that further research is required stating that:

The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse event was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

Essentially FEMA and ASCE offered up a working hypothesis that fires caused by the fuel in the building caused the steel to give way and the building to collapse but are very clear that this was only a hypothesis that required further study.

That further study was provided by...

NIST

NIST released their final report on WTC 7 in 2008, the whole saga leading up to the publication of this report could probably cover a thread just as long as this one so I am going to omit this part of the history of WTC-7. The important part for the purposes of this article is to address how NIST say it collapsed.

To put things very very simply NIST basically came out and said that this was caused by fires and refuted the FEMA hypothesis that it was caused by fuel tanks as most of the fuel was recovered although it’s actually a little more complicated than that....


NIST highlight that throughout that day there were at least 10 fire’s burning inside WTC-7 with out of control fires raging on floors 7-9 and 11-13. The heat from these fires caused the steel beams supporting these floors to sag as a result of fire induced thermal expansion. Due to the difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion between steel and concrete the connections holding floor 13 to column 79 failed resulting in the collapse of floor 13 when a girder connecting column 44 to 79 collapsed. The collapse of floor 13 caused a progressive collapse of the floors below it on until they reached the reinforced floor 5. However this action left column 79 (one of the 3 large support columns for the eastern portion of the building) without any lateral support cause it to buckle, the cause of the “kink” and then its failure. The Failure of column 79 resulted in an upwards progression of collapse of the floors it was supporting which caused the collapse of the East Penthouse. This put additional strain on the 2 remaining supporting interior columns, 80 and 81 which under the redistributed weight coupled with the debris and effects of fire also buckled causing the first and second transfer trusses to also fail. This redistributed the load of the building on to columns 58-7 and now the entire weight of the building was being supported by these interior columns which were insufficient (hence the need for the transfer trusses in the first place), and as such they also began to buckle and fail. The columns began to fail form east to west (as is evidence from the collapse of the east penthouse) this caused a progressive collapse of the core support of the building and the entire interior of the building collapsed. Eventually the building essentially became a hollow shell and the exterior support columns also failed and the building fell straight down. There was very little resistance because the interior of the building had already collapsed.



That in a nutshell is NISTs explanation of events there are no explosives or super nano-thermite required!!



But not even the official story is perfect....

The Official Story’s Failings.


Whist no (serious) academic paper has “debunked” the official story completely there are several that have challenged some points, such as one which argued that NIST neglected to take into account the effect that cooling had on the steel within the structure and how this effected the collapse. But broadly speaking that has not been any true scientific rebuttal of NIST’s explanation other than in small scientific details.

But NIST does suffer a number of rather stark failings, some of which seem incompressible as to why they allowed them to go unchecked.

For example, NIST have refused to release any of the data that went into their computer-modelling of the collapse of WTC7 arguing that it would jeopardise public safety.

Pursuant To Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I Hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute Of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety.

Yeah.....

And that is not the only problem, in conducting their investigation into the demise of WTC-7 they were unable to analyse any steel from WTC-7 because it had all been removed...All of it!

Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and to facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

So NIST are saying that the reason they couldn’t look at that steel was because they could not identify it. Which I guess is fair enough but if they are saying they were unable to identify the steel, the only problem with this claim is that it is possible to identify the steel. Ironically the BBC documentary “The Third Tower ” (about 45 minutes in) debunks this claim in the documentary they present a piece of WTC-7 steel that they were able to confirm came from WTC-7. However at the same time this discovery also debunks a truthers claim regarding the “Swiss-Cheese-steel”. Yet the point still stands, it would have been possible to identify the steel form WTC-7.

Many have also criticised NIST for not take the possibility of controlled demolition more seriously, which NIST state they did explore however for some they were not rigorous enough in exploring this possibility despite the lack of evidence to support this hypothesis.

While the official story does have some flaws there are also flaws that can be seen in 9/11 truthers version of events.

Truthers, lie’s and exaggerations.

In composing and researching this article I have opened my mind to all possibilities and as such I have went at lengths to explore the alternative narrative of what really happened to WTC-7 this has involved watching the documentaries, reading the books and surfing the web to extrapolate the main conspiracy themes. I have been able to develop a picture of the 9/11 truth movements attitude towards WTC-7. Now whilst I recognise that the official story has some holes in it (see above) and that members of the 9/11 truth movement raise and ask some very important questions, when viewed as a collective body of knowledge the claims of truthers are underwhelming at best.



When I reflect on the body of knowledge that is the collective of the 9/11 truth movement a number of very serious issues become clear. The first issue I have is that although credit must be given to truthers for asking the important questions and continuing to do so they do very little to provide little answers and a alternative narrative themselves that can completely explain what happened to WTC-7. This is the key difference that I see between the official story and the arguments proposed by truthers. The official story provides a full narrative of what happened to WTC-7 yet truthers fail to achieve this. For example some truthers support a view that explosive devices (possibly nano-thermite) brought down WTC-7 yet cannot adequately explain exactly how these devices could have been planted in all of the key area’s required without ever getting caught.

There are also some instances of flat out lies being told particularly by A&E for 9/11 truth which are just appalling. Now again, I do know that some will point to lies regarding the official account of 9/11, but let’s keep on topic. The kind of lies being told by Gage et al that I mean are lies like it took WTC-7 less than 7 seconds to collapse, or that it fell into its own foot print. As we have seen so far this is simply not true yet these supposed experts will try to tell you otherwise. Now surly as experts they much know it took much longer than 7 seconds, yet they continue to promote lies. I suspect this is for financial reasons, I would strongly encourage individuals to actually take time to look at the A&E for 9/11 truth website and particularly the member ship fees which go up to a staggering $100 000.

Throughout this article as has been demonstrated there are a number of truther claims that just don’t stand up to some critical scrutiny. This is another huge theme, truthers have just accepted that WTC-7 is the smoking gun but mostly because someone like Dr David Griffin has told them it is. There is almost no critical thinking applied to their claims, many just simply regurgitate what their compatriots in 9/11 truth have been sayings. It has created a very interesting phenomenon whereby truthers are using other truthers to back up their claims. For example they all source the same paper as being “evidence” of the use of nano-thermite and at the same time ignore the fallibility of that paper and other papers that cast it in doubt.

It is unfortunate because I truly believe that the 9/11 truth movement started out with honest intentions to seek out truth but over time it has became corrupted and more concerned about financial gain and establishing some grand conspiracy than it is about truth. Alex Jones for example knows that he has a audience to please, that audience want to hear that WTC-7 was brought down by controlled demolition so that’s what he and others provide in return for cash and a increased public profile.

The subject of the state of the 9/11 truth movement is one that I could discuss all day, but for now let’s move on to what i see to be the biggest and most profound hole in the truthers view of WTC-7.

Motivation.

Why?!?!?

Why would “they” want to destroy WTC-7?

This is the bit I honestly just can’t work pass, I just don’t see any motivation for the total destruction of WTC-7. In compiling this thread I have seen several possibilities raised by truthers many point out it was for financial gain, they destroyed WTC-7 to get more insurance money. But again, why do that, does that not seem like a little too much risk?

The other reason that often raises its head is that it was to cover up some missing cash or fraudulent dealings. These theories range from the “missing 2.3 trillion dollars” to the massive ENRON investigation and even others who claim that the whole 9/11 plot was planned and executed from WTC-7 then destroyed to cover up the evidence. All very intriguing ideas yet all fail for the very same reason. If it was to cover up some criminal evidence then “they” could just claim afterword’s that the evidence was all destroyed in the fire or even have started the fires themselves.

A third leading motivation I have came across is the idea that Flight 93 was actually intended to hit WTC-7 and that because the passengers took it over and crashed the plane it never got to its final destination it never hit WTC-7 but the explosives still went off as they were timed. Again an interesting idea but one that is very quickly refuted simply by looking at the flight path of flight 93, it was basically heading in the opposite direction



Now I do not doubt that there are thousands of people with thousands of idea’s as to why they would demolish WTC-7 but based on my research I cannot see a single reasonable motivation for the total destruction of that building.

Final Thoughts

What I have presented in this thread is more of a summary of the evidence I have seen regarding WTC-7 so far as opposed to a “this is what happened”. This is not by any means intended to support one view point over another nor is it to convince anyone that one view point has more merit than another, that is at the readers own discretion. It is entirely possible that tomorrow some new ground breaking evidence could come into the light that will radically challenge the content of this thread.

In my closing thoughts it is perhaps only right that I make my view point regarding the demise of WTC-7 clear. It is my position that WTC-7 collapsed as a result of its weaknesses that were intrinsic in its design that meant it was unable to withstand the damage that it sustained and the fires raging within its walls that were caused by the collapse of the North Tower. I do not believe that any method of controlled demolition was used, nor do I believe that anyone had prior knowledge to its collapse or that anyone deliberately destroyed the building. I base this position on the extensive research I have undertaken in compiling this thread.

I believe it is also only right that I also make it clear that this thread by no means covers all issues pertaining to WTC-7. There is much that I have omitted such as claims about energy weapons, nuclear devices and so on. This has been done because do have included every conspiracy about WTC-7 would have required a thread at least 3 times larger than this one. I say this so that members are aware that I know i have omitted some information.

I would also like to take this opportunity ask members that when responding to my above comments that they would do so within the terms and conditions of this site and stay on the topic of WTC-7. This is not a thread about the other events that took place that day. Please also note that there are bound to be some mistakes in this thread, I know there are going to be loads of spelling errors and perhaps even a factual error but i have done my best to minimise these errors.

And Finally a, BIG THANK YOU, if you have actually taken the time to read all the way through to the end of this thread.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I wish I had this much time on my hands.

You took all that time just to regurgitate what has been said around here adnauseum?

i apologize for not being able to read the whole thing, maybe one day i will. I did read the summary and see that the lower corner damage is what you believe dropped the no7. In you extensive research is there anything said about were the rubble from the damaged part of the building was found? For instance was is found 100s of feet away, was it found gathered at the base of the building or did the rubble stay mostly within the building? Before the fall. I believe if we knew this info, we can have a pretty good idea of what caused that damage to building7

reply to post by DocHolidaze


By Rubble do you mean the steel that was found if so that is mentioned in the OP

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
This is not by any means intended to support one view point over another

Sorry but I have to be calling some bovine excrement here.

You call the 9/11 commission "short comings" but call truther's "liars". Your BS is so transparent it stinks from here.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


by rubble I mean what ever material that was removed from the lower corner of the building that made up that corner

reply to post by HandyDandy


There are instances i can say that the truthers have been telling out right lies in relation to WTC-7 such as lying about how long it collapsed. I do not believe that individual truthers are telling "lies" rather that they have been misinformed knowingly be the likes of Richard Gage who are in it more for money and ego than the truth.

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

by rubble I mean what ever material that was removed from the lower corner of the building that made up that corner

Everything for the WTC-7 site was removed shortly after is collapse it would have been impossible for them to have identified individual pieces of ruble and say "this is where it came from" for everything. I did not find any evidence to say they had found that huge chuck tore out of the south side corner of the building. I also list this as what I see to be one of the big questions hanging over the official story. why did they not analyze the steel from WTC-7?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Ah, but NIST out and out lying that WTC 7 didn't freefall AT ALL and then having to change that when shown by a high school physics teacher that they were lying isn't a lie....correct?

Again I call BS on your supposed unbiasness.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

Ah, but NIST out and out lying that WTC 7 didn't freefall AT ALL and then having to change that when shown by a high school physics teacher that they were lying isn't a lie....correct?

Again I call BS on your supposed unbiasness.

Again, I am quite honest about the short comings of the official story, NIST do acknowledge that for 2.5 seconds the building was in gravitational free fall, yet there are members of the 9/11 truth movement who claim it was in free fall for the entirety of the collapse, this is not true.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
yet there are members of the 9/11 truth movement who claim it was in free fall for the entirety of the collapse, this is not true.

I've only heard the 9/11 truth movement mention the fact the buildings came down close to freefall. Not that they claim actual freefall.

I've only ever heard the statement that 'truthers" claim freefall by the "liars"...err I mean "untruthers"....err I mean OSers.

But, you to sit there and claim that the truth movement lies while ommitting the fact that the government lies on a daily basis about everything is pretty much why I'm calling BS on you. Maybe if you had called those government agencies "liars" when they are caught lying or distorting the truth, then maybe I could believe your unbiasness. But, not the way the OP was written....sorry.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


It was cleaned up rather quickly( dont want to leave any incriminating evidence behind )

but i want to say with the advancement of forensics these days, and with our in depth knowledge of basic physics the placement of the rubble from the damaged building 7 before the fall would indicate exactly how that building did get damaged. Knowing how the building got damaged would give us more insight into why the building fell. I believe with out this crucial piece of information it will be impossible to know why no7 fell.

reply to post by HandyDandy

I've only heard the 9/11 truth movement mention the fact the buildings came down close to freefall. Not that they claim actual freefall.

I have quoted a truther saying it fell at free fall i think in the OP and if by "close to freefall" you mean 40% longer than actual gravitational free fall then fair enough...

Still you really are nit-picking, this thread is about much much more than truthers claims about how long the building took to fall.

reply to post by DocHolidaze

It was cleaned up rather quickly( dont want to leave any incriminating evidence behind )

I would say that I am about 85-90% sold on the official narrative but that 10-15% of doubt comes from exactly what you point out. NIST essentially say that the reason for this is because they couldn't tell what was and was not WTC-7 steel. This is something I dont believe, I think they were complacent in not pursuing WTC-7 steel. As to weather or not this was down to simple negligence or because they were part of a criminal cover up, I dont know. The sum of the evidence leads me to say there was no criminal cover up but then this one piece of information makes me think its possible. Hence why i have some doubt.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


great thread.

regardless of who was responsible, the bottom line is, this event sent America to war. and that there are people making a profit from the war.

i actually sat there and read the whole thing and i've come to pretty much the same conclusion as you over the years. i used to believe it was some big conspiracy and still do in some way thing it was known about, but the whole demo thing and WTC-7 didn't add up.

if there is any conspiracy it most likely just equates to TPTB having prior knowledge and letting it happen, and the rest just happened.

First of all, if it's not too late you may want to proofread your OP. It's loaded with typos which certainly take away from your case.

I can't respond to everything (yee gods, where would I start?) but just answer me two things:

Who is the 'errr, fire department commander' that Silverstein talked to that day?

He said he got a call (pretty nifty, do 'fire department commanders' have building owner's phone numbers on speed dial?), and why on earth would you consult said building owner on a day like that, when you've lost hundreds of fellow firefighters, to discuss whether or not to remove personnel from a burning building devoid of sprinklers just mere 100s of feet away from a smoking heap of metal and toxic air?

Consider this, he's just lost hundreds of people under his command and he's calling Lucky Larry, and furthermore taking Larry's advice on how he should do his job, on the most chaotic and deadly day in New York City history.

As far as I know, that 'errr, fire commander' has never come forward and every REAL FIRE COMMANDER who has been asked if it was them has answered no.

Should be an easy search function for any intrepid reporter or member of the Liar Community. How many of these people were left after 12 noon that day? Probably a precious few.

Secondly, you have a paragraph there alleging that by 3:00 that day, 'building demolition experts' have arrived in NYC and that they somehow knew that the building was going to fall.

Again, you're saying that some unnamed building demolition experts managed to get into NYC when FLIGHTS WERE CANCELLED and had plenty of time to get nearby and study the burning, slightly damaged building and decide unilaterally that that sucker was comin' down? When other buildings closer and more damaged did not fall down but remained standing partially until demolished at a later date?

Which 'building demolition experts', pray tell? Got a name? Either company name or individual's names will suffice. Otherwise it's a manufactured and highly convenient lie.

reply to post by signalfire


You raise two good points.

To address the first issue, who exactly did Silverstein speak to?

honestly nobody knows, I have read a number of firefighters who deny having spoke to him which actually casts doubt over weather he even did actually say what he said, remember he was speaking a year after the event.

As to the second point, all I have is that link to provide evidence for that for now it was based on a report complied by a team of explosive demolition experts who claimed to have spoken to people there. Its possible they were based in or near New York and that is how they were able to get to WTC so early with out flights.

Also, the typo's, i can only apologize, I have dyslexia some might not even be typo's