homehome > wtc > plausibility > building 7

Building 7


Well, this is the mother of all peculiarities if you ask me. Now, you can listen to these guys and their pancake theories and their angle clips and their temperatures of jet fuel and their points at which steel melts all day long, and you might just throw up your hands and say OK, maybe it's plausible. But then there's Building 7.

Building 7 collapsed all of a sudden at 5:20 pm on September 11 and has received relatively little news coverage.

Not hit by a plane. There were some fires in the building, but nothing like the towers. Nothing that should have made the entire building drop into its own footprint at freefall speed. Looked even more like a controlled demolition than the towers, because it dropped *from the bottom*. Textbook demolition.

Building 7 had Giuliani's Emergency Command Center, as well as CIA, Secret Service, and Department of Defense offices. Hmmmm....

The fire department knew in advance it was going to collapse. Photographer Tom Franklin was near the building and reported that "Firemen evacuated the area as they prepared for the collapse of Building Seven." WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein has said they made the decision to "pull" the building. And the BBC reported its collapse 25 minutes before it happened...with the building in the background, still standing!

Building 7 is not covered in the official 9/11 Commission report. Not mentioned! Omitted! Hello!?

There has not really been an official explanation for Building 7, since it was omitted from the Commission report and FEMA produced a weak report full of tepid speculation that even the agency admitted had "only a low probability of occurrence." It was very lame, and people noticed. The government realized it needed an official story. The poor bastards at NIST were given the onerous task, and now, at last, as of August 21, 2008, after three years of trying, NIST has managed to produce an elaborate computer model in which Building 7 comes down from fire.

S. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator, said: "Our take-home message today is the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery. It did not collapse from explosives or fuel oil fires." Since the fires were fairly small, they couldn't rely on the old "softened steel" line. So they came up with a new twist. According to the report, horizontal beams expanded from the heat, i.e., grew longer, pushing against a girder, eventually causing it to detach from a particular column (they name column 79 somehow, although all the steel was immediately shipped to China to be melted down and was never examined). After this girder came loose from this column, part of floor 13 collapsed, causing the old pancake effect down to floor 5. All this was invisible to us from the outside. But with the load distributed to other columns, they eventually weakened, and then, yep, "progressive collapse." The structure stood there, undetectably getting weak, and then suddenly, all at once, dropped like a prom dress. There's your official story, proving that people who thought it looked just like a demolition job were just wacko crazies all along.

Source: Marrs, p. 60-61. Griffin, p. 176-177. Also, there's good video of this collapse. Google it.


The NIST report is patently implausible. Nothing of the kind has ever happened and it is simply an absurd explanation, which bends over backwards and does somersaults to avoid the obvious. It was so clearly a demo job that you would have to be blind and insane not to know it was a demo job. The firemen knew it was a demo job. And Silverstein admitted it was a demo job ("pull" is industry slang for a demolition by explosives). Ergo, I think you have to conclude, this was most definitely plain as day a goddamned demo job. Which raises the question, if that was a demo job, why couldn't the other ones also be demo jobs?

I'll tell you what annoys me the most. The condescending sarcasm. After putting out this insult to our intelligence, the NIST guy Sunder is asked why he thinks questions persist. "I am really not a psychologist," he answers. "Our job was to come up with the best science."

Look. Do what you have to do. Put out your little report and keep a straight face. Let's even assume for the sake of argument that the report is true. Miraculously true. OK. Why wouldn't you say something like "Yeah, it sure did look like a controlled demolition, I can see why people thought that. But it just isn't so." Why would you say the people must be crazy to think such a thing? Answer: because your case is so weak, you must try to cut off criticism by discrediting your critics. Attack the messenger so nobody will hear the message. Just more cheap cynicism from an administration that reckons the American public is just stupid enough to sit back and take it.

Bottom line, me, I give it:

extremely suspiciousextremely suspiciousextremely suspiciousextremely suspicious


Currently showing comment 1 of 1 total comments.

1. sunny 11 Jan 2008 09:32:32 PM

This is the powder keg that might blow this whole thing wide open. I can't belive that so few people know about building 7, but awareness is growing.

You must log in if you wish to add a comment. Register here if you need login information.