Could fire bring down WTC 7?

Before we can answer that question, we first must ask what holds a building up? Well, that’s easy; a building is supported by its framework, or its superstructure. In other words, each floor of a building is built upon a series of columns. These columns stand completely vertical, often reinforced with diagonal support beams to help weight distribution reach a greater surface area. In fact, the greater number of support columns in place, the greater load-bearing capability is available, which will in turn allows for a greater number of floors to be built above it.

There’s nothing magical about it, we’re simply talking about weight distribution.

But support columns are not the only aspect to creating a stable building. If you were to build a tall tower out of a child’s blocks, you will find that the lack of attachment in any of the free-floating blocks causes your creation to wobble with instability, and if you were to remove one of the supports, the entire structure would collapse. Now imagine building a tower out of Leggos. You will find that the structure built out of Leggos is much more stable, even though you used the same design, because the entire infrastructure is relying upon all other parts to maintain structural integrity. In other words, a support column on one side of the structure bears less total weight once it is attached to the superstructure, and in fact, relieves the columns on the very opposite end of the building, than it would if it were merely holding up stuff that was carefully stacked on top. Now, if you were to remove one of the support columns from this Leggo building, you would hear the rest of the structure creak, as it strains to maintain structural integrity. If you remove a couple more, the structure will eventually weaken and collapse. But the collapse would not be uniform, and certainly would not be symmetrical. The collapse would cause the building to tilt in the direction it is weakest (the area without the support columns). Momentum would cause all parts of the building to fall in the direction of structural collapse, but then a funny thing happens. Even though the building fell, most of the upper portions remained intact. That is because even though the support columns holding up the entire structure were no longer there, the rest of the structures integrity is still unified. In fact, you would then have to go through the process of dismantling each of the pieces that remained attached to the structure on the whole.

So, a building remains standing because the structural supports hold it up, which in turn redistribute the load-bearing weight of the entire building throughout the entire superstructure because they are all interconnected and reinforced with diagonal support beams.

Be sure to examine these examples of buildings that have fallen (but not collapsed in a universal, uniform, and symmetrical manner) because one or more of the supports beneath failed.

What about fire?

Suppose your tall building was on fire for hours on end. We all know that steel weakens when it is heated, couldn’t weakened beams cause the building to collapse? The answer? It doesn’t matter. Let’s go back to the example of the Leggo building. We already demonstrated that the removal of some of the support columns only affects the overall stability of the building insofar as its ability to stand upright. The removal of a few support columns will cause a building to topple, but not implode (even if you were to simultaneously remove every support column in the center on the bottom floor of the building, the rest of the building, still attached, would twist, it would bend, but it would not collapse right away), no matter how hot that fire was.

WTC 7

Here’s the problem. Universal, symmetrical, and simultaneous failure of the entire superstructure. Regardless of how hot the fire was inside the building (though there is no evidence to suggest that the fires were anywhere near as intense as the fires I posted before), fire alone cannot cause the very connectivity of the superstructure of the building to fail all at the exact same time. In short, if fire indeed caused the superstructure of the building to weaken (the fire would have to have been thousands of degrees hotter than the temp at which diesel burns … 1650 F max … in order to cause universal superstructure failure), it STILL would have met resistance with the rest of the superstructure it was attached to and could not have met with universal collapse (especially at the rate of freefall).

There is only one way for the superstructure to meet with the conditions necessary for the building to fall straight down and at the rate of free-fall, and that is with the use of demolitions.

I challenge anyone to give solid, demonstrable evidence that WTC 7 could have collapsed as it did without the aid of timed explosives.

In the mean time … check out this video of Freemasons being arrested for plotting to bring down the Sears Tower in Chicago.