Answers to Points regarding WTC 7

*Please bear with my pictures and text placement. I'm still learning how to do layouts on this and am not having the best of luck.

In the comments to my previous post there have been some critical points which would call into question certain aspects of the claims I made. I shall go through them one at a time and try to answer them to the best of my ability. Please bear in mind that I am NOT presenting a complete thesis attempting to answer all aspects of 9-11. Only those things which have been questions regarding what I have posted.

In a later post, I will attempt to present certain scientific aspects of the nature of demolitions, the physics of resistance, and illustrate whether or not it is probable (or even possible) for the WTC 7 building to have collapsed in a completely uniformed and symmetrical manner without the aid of demolitions charges.

1) It is so unusual for steel frame buildings to collapse [because they are] not permitted to go on burning for hours on end.

Actually, that is not quite the case. When one compares fires in steel framed buildings from all over the world, that have raged with intense ferocity for far longer than the few visible fires in WTC 7, it is obvious that the amount of time a fire burned had no impact upon whether the building would meet with universal, symmetrical failure at the same exact point in time. Here are a few examples.

This first image is the aftermath of a 12 hour fire in the upper portion of one of the tallest buildings in Caracas, Venezuela. Even though the fire was so intense that there was concern of melting, not only did the building not collapse, but it also did not even bend. WTC 7’s fires were apparently less intense and burned for only about half the time.

The next three images I will provide here are of the 32-story, Windsor Tower, in Madrid, Spain, which burned for 24 hours on February 12th, 2005. Although the top ten floors fell, the building itself did not collapse. The Windsor Tower was framed in steel reinforced concrete.

The last image is of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which burned for 18 hours in February 1991, gutting 8 floors.

Clearly, the fact that WTC 7 burned for hours on end did was not the reason why it collapsed in a completely uniformed and symmetrical fashion.

Oh … and let’s not forget that WTC 7 was built with ”enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity” With that kind of redundancy built into the infrastructure of the building, the liklihood that universal, symmetrical, and simultaneous structural failure would happen is almost zero.

2) You can CLAIM that there is only minor fire damage. I still see fires raging on multiple floors in the photo you posted. The fact that YOU SAY these fires I see are not serious does not make them so.

There were fires reported on approximately 10 floors throughout the day. From all the photographic evidence I have seen, the amount of damage to WTC 7 appears to be minor from the outside. Please keep in mind that in bringing up the damage observed on WTC 7, there were at least 3 other buildings that had sustained severe damage (far worse than WTC 7), and were on fire for just as long, and not only remained standing, but there were no pre-reports that they had (past tense) fallen. From all photographic accounts, the damage to WTC 7 on the outside was minor.

3) WTC 7 housed several generators that ran on liquid fuel (deisel, I think). The fuel from these generators apparently fed the fire.

Regardless of what fueled the fire, the problem is not the fire itself. It is the completely uniformed and symmetrical manner in which the building fell, at the rate of free fall. Even if those tanks containing diesel fuel exploded (which would have caused a massive fireball that no one could have missed), only the portions destroyed by the initial blast would have crumbled … the rest of the building would have twisted and torqued, but because they were still intact, they would not have fallen in a uniformed manner.

4) We do not have a clear picture of the side of the building that faced Ground Zero, but that is apparently where a lot of the exterior damage would have been visible.

Shots from above, the southeast corner, and the back give a good idea as to the condition of the building. Furthermore, video footage of the building shows that there was no resistance from lower floors as the top floor traveled on its way down. This indicated that universally, throughout the building, all of the support for the building failed simultaneously and completely. This cannot have happened without the aid of demolitions.

5) There is still no evident reason why there would have been a conspiracy to pull WTC 7 and then cover it up from the public. After the Twin Towers fell, everything else was anti-climax. If the conspirators wanted to galvanize the public, pulling WTC 7 was hardly worth the effort after they succeeded in crashing the planes into 1 and 2.

Anything I say regarding this particular point is strictly theoretical. As the great Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said through his character, Sherlock Holmes, “Once you remove the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” In other words, if it can be established that WTC 7 did NOT fall as a result of fire, then what remains is that it was brought down by demolitions. Once that is established, we can figure out the “why”.

All said, however, let us take this information in the context of the three pre-reported broadcasts. There is no way the complete and universal collapse of WTC 7 could have possibly been predicted (unless it was being prepped for demolitions). I am not claiming that those reporters, or even the news stations are in on some conspiracy. I am not theorizing here ... a report went out on the newswire, which those three stations picked up and reported on, stating that WTC 7 "had collapsed" (past tense). No one could have predicted that the building would collapse. Perhaps portions of the building might collapse, but universal structural failure could never have been predicted. How e'er it be, whoever sent out the newswire report knew that it was going to collapse before it did, since they reported that it already had, when quite obviously, it had not.