Book Review: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7
if you deny what your eyes see!
WTC 7 is what woke me up to what happened on 9/11. I discovered the story in 2005.
I my mind, the much larger ramification is that there appears to be so much mis-information, especially from governments in the world we live. The WTC 7 is cannot be refuted. Govt. corruption/tyranny gives a much greater credence to the underlying principals of the crash course, and why global media and others would be trying to deceive the public about that reality.
Fires in WTC7
I am very happy to have people thinking critically about the subject of what happened to World Trade Center 7. The problem is not that we may disagree, but that we may fail to look and think critically for ourselves. If we should accept the view of an “authority” that is not being truthful, we are vulnerable to being bamboozled. Lets not do that. We will think for ourselves.
Sometimes when we hear people talk about WTC7, the verbal description creates a picture of a “towering inferno.” But that is just not the case. The fires in WTC7 were confined to a few floors and many had consumed their fuel (office furnishings) and gone out before the collapse just after 5 pm. I’ve picked out some photographs to show the (lack of) extent of the fires.
Intro: Summarizing the fire situation from NIST:
1. What material was the building made from?
Steel and cement (with glass windows). The structure itself was not combustible.
2. What set the fires initially?
Debris falling from the North Tower started fires in WTC7 on several floors.
3. What was the fuel of the fires?
Office furnishings (such as desks, computers, paper, copy machines, etc).
4. How did the fires spread across the floor?
It moved from work station to work station.
5. Was there fuel oil burning in the building?
No. Earlier reports suggested this possibility but NIST decided there was no fuel oil feeding the fires.
6. Did fires spread from floor to floor?
No. The building was a Fire Resistance Class 1A building whose design resisted floor to floor spread. Each fire was confined to the floor where it started and burned in the area where office furnishings were available as fuel. When the fuel source was consumed, they went out.
7. Was there anything flammable in the central core of the building?
No. The fires were fueled by office-furnishings located outside the core area (grey in the diagram below). The core (dark blue) contained stairs, elevators, and utility lines but no combustible material.
Lets look at some pictures. A question to ponder as we review the pictures below: Is it reasonable to expect burning office furniture to melt steel? Many of us have wood burning stoves. Does the steel of your wood stove sometimes melt when you put too much wood in it?
Lets look at the pictures taken between 2:30 pm and 5:00 pm when the fires were at their peak.
Picture 1: About 4:00 pm. A close up at of the 8th floor, currently burning, and the 7th floor, where fires have gone out. (Pointing out the warped frames on windows in the lower right, the Daily Mail article explains that “the fire was so hot that it melted steel!”)
Picture 2: Close up of a single burning floor on the east face. Note the emergent flames and broken windows that signal a hot fire.
Picture 3: The north face at 3:15 pm showing fires on floors 7 and 12. Note that the overwhelming majority of the building is NOT on fire. The great majority of the building was untouched by any fires at any time.
Picture 4: The west face at 2:30 pm. Damage on the upper floor is visible and lots of smoke. But very little evidence of fire.
Picture 5: An areal view of the west face. Again, damage from the debris of the North Tower is seen but little fire.
Picture 6: Northwest corner at 3:42 pm. Note a single window with emergent flames. Window breakage and smoke damage is seen on floors 7 and 8, evidence of earlier fires that have gone out.
What I am trying to point out here is that there were a few pockets of intense fires, areas where fire had burned out well before collapse, and that the great majority of the building was completely untouched by any fire at any time.
This was not a wood-framed house fire: it was a Class 1A building made of steel and cement and engineered for fire resistance. When one of these collapses for the first time in history we need to really look closely at the situation. (Especially when it drops vertically at free-fall speed and gives the largest military in the history of the Planet Earth carte blanche to wage war on every continent! How handy!)
Is it feasible that explosives could be present in a building with a few isolated fires without extensive heat shielding?
1. The design of an implosion typically begins by detonating the central core columns in multiple SUB-BASEMENT levels. I have never heard basement fires mentioned in WTC7. And, of course, the great majority of the building was not ever on fire at any point.
2. The building core did not have office furnishings and would not have been on fire. Explosives placed in the core would not have been exposed to heat.
3. DetCord could be run up the utility access routes through the core. Or radio controlled detonators could be used.
What motive might "deep state" have had for demolition of any WTC buildings? Grateful for the opinion of anyone for the demolition theory.
Though I was not at the planning meeting , the way that things unfolded since 9/11 suggest the role it was designed to play.
David Ray Griffin, a theologian, explains in his paper and lecture: 9/11: The Myth and the Reality
According to the official story about 9/11, America, because of its goodness, was attacked by fanatical Arab Muslims who hate our freedoms. This story has functioned as a Sacred Myth for the United States since that fateful day. And this function appears to have been carefully orchestrated. The very next day, President Bush announced his intention to lead “a monumental struggle of Good versus Evil.” Then on September 13, he declared that the following day would be a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for the Victims of the Terrorist Attacks. And on that next day, the president himself, surrounded by Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi, and an imam, delivered a sermon in the national cathedral, saying:
(George Bush's speech) "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of Evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. . . . In every generation, the world has produced enemies of human freedom. They have attacked America, because we are freedom’s home and defender. . . . [W]e ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come. . . . And may He always guide our country. God bless America."
Through this unprecedented event, in which the president of the United States issued a declaration of war from a cathedral, …the American government consecrated its version of events. … When anyone asks what right the administration has to invade and occupy other countries, to imprison people indefinitely without due process, or even to ignore various laws, the answer is always the same: “9/11.” Those who believe that US law and international law should be respected are dismissed as having “a pre-9/11 mind-set.”
The Great Myth of the 9/11 Attacks were spun to give the US Military the legal and moral justification to wage war on any nation, to assassinate hundreds of civilians, and to re-institute the practice of torturing prisoners of war– all in the name of God.
Thanks sand_puppy. So if that were true, surely just having planes hit the twin towers was enough? Why the need to help the story along by adding pre-positioned explosives? "deep state" took a huge risk by doing so.
Has anyone claimed to have been involved in the demolition and spoken out as a whistle blower? I just can't imagine how such a large group could conspire to cause such innocent collateral damage and not one of them speak up.
Thanks for the effort you have put into this thread. Whenever I become complacent about things, I just watch a video of WTC7 again and it brings me back into focus. It has been that way for me for a long time now.
Rebuilding a new understanding of what happened on 9/11 is a process. It is intellectually challenging as you must read and integrate lots of new data, and you must address the many questions and contradictions that come up, exactly like you are doing with these questions. And, as Sterling noted, the whole thing "is like a sucker punch to the gut." And this information is not being brought to you by the media. You have to dig it out for yourself.
Let me point you back to David Ray Griffin's 9/11: The Myth and Reality lecture (on youtube) and the written paper linked above as he addresses 2 of the questions you raise. This is a good starting place. His book "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About Bush and 9/11" is also very good.
From his lecture:
Myth Number 3: Such a big operation, involving so many people, could not have been kept a secret, because someone involved in it would have talked by now.
This claim is based on a more general myth, which is that is impossible for secret government operations to be kept secret very long, because someone always talks. But how could we know this? If some big operations have remained secret until now, we by definition do not know about them. Moreover, we do know of big some operations that were kept secret as long as necessary, such as the Manhattan Project to create the atomic bomb, and the war in Indonesia in 1957, which the United States government provoked, participated in, and was able to keep secret from its own people until a book about it appeared in 1995. Many more examples could be given.
We can understand, moreover, why those with inside knowledge of 9/11 would not talk. At least most of them would have been people with the proven ability to keep secrets. Those who were directly complicit would also be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace and the gas chamber. Those people who had knowledge without being complicit could be induced to keep quiet by means of more or less subtle threats—such as: “Joe, if you go forward with your plans to talk to the press about this, I don’t know who is going to protect your wife and kids from some nutcase angered by your statement.” Still another fact is that neither the government nor the mainstream press has, to say the least, shown any signs of wanting anyone to come forward.
On the subject of the risk / benefit of blowing up the buildings in plain sight:
You will find that, incredibly, it is possible to HIDE an explosive demolition right in front of an intelligent person's eyes and not have them be able to see it. You can show them an exploding building, and before they have time to think critically for themselves, a trusted authority says "It is collapsing" and they will nod and say "OK." They then buy into that viewpoint, own it as a part of their identity, and will actually fight to defend it!
Much has been written about this phenomenon. It is amazing.
(Pointing out the warped frames on windows in the lower right, the Daily Mail article explains that “the fire was so hot that it melted steel!”)
It's not clear to me that those drooping strips are actually steel.. they may very well be non-structural Aluminum trim around the windows. Aluminum melts at 1221 deg. F, 660 deg. C… much lower than steel.
sand_puppy I still don't get why they would have wanted to accentuate the plane crashes with pre-placed explosives – especially in WT7 which was not even hit.
Up until you posted this topic I had ignored such discussion as paranoia. But people that I have come to respect are weighing in on the side of the deep state demolition theory. Including yourself and even Chris. This has completely astonished me.
I have a good friend whom I also respect greatly other than that he is completely convinced that alien UFO's are flying through the sky over his house daily. He has online friends with whom he shares his observations and they collectively amass evidence to confirm their beliefs.
Now I feel just like I would if I were to learn that PeakProsperity.com backs the alien UFO theory.
I mean no disrespect sand_puppy. I am just describing my own reaction. You have put a lot of thought into your position and it's not like a bloke down the pub saying after his fourth pint that the CIA done it. You really put some effort into this and put yourself on the line laying it out there. But for me to even begin to read more about this (the detailed engineering reports etc) is like acknowledging that maybe alien UFOs really do fly about under our noses.
If I may ask one more question. You described that moment for you as like a sucker punch to the gut. What was the single most compelling piece of evidence that got you to take this topic so seriously?