Thursday, December 10, 2009

WTC7 Collapse (NOT a Controlled Demolition)

Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin like to assert that the collapse of WTC 7 is somehow the "key" to unlocking the "conspiracy" behind 9/11. Because it wasn't hit by a plane the collapse is apparently more suspicious than that of the Twin Towers and the explanation given by some Truthers is that it was brought down by a controlled demolition. They cite the fact that it looks quite like a controlled demolition (which it does, superficially) and also the fact that steel-framed high-rise buildings have never before collapsed due to fire alone.

This video wasn't made by me so please ignore the commentary but listen to the fireman explaining, before the building came down, that it's collapse was inevitable. Please also read the comments made by FDNY staff about what they saw and why they thought the building would collapse. It doesn't seem that they were persuaded by the idea that because a steel high-rise has never come down that it follows that one can't come down due to fire.



This video also explains how the WTC7 building came to be so damaged. While it was not hit by a plane, it was hit by debris from WTC1, or the North Tower. The fires were not small, unlike what Richard Gage alleges (but I believe that NIST has ruled out the deisel tanks as being the cause of collapse).



Richard Gage also cites "sounds of explosions" as a charcateristic of a controlled demolition. Here is Kevin McPadden suggesting that the WTC7 building was destroyed that way:



Apart from the strange implication that the Red Cross (!?) was involved in the conspiracy, the sounds that McPadden describes and the rumble through the ground don't seem to have appeared on this video. What does appear is the fact that the building was expected to fall. Again, no one seemed to have contradicted the idea that a steel-framed high-rise could fall due to fire.



More confirmation here.

See also here and here.

Just for the record, here is the beginning of the collapse of WTC2 as well. Notice that the steel frame does give way and its collapse is not initiated by any explosives:

6 comments:

Devil's Advocate said...

Talk about grasping at straws!

The only thing you've proven is your ignorance of physics and reality.

America needs to turn off the TV, and just wake up.

angrysoba said...

America needs to turn off the TV, and just wake up.


Presumably in the opposite order.

Devil's Advocate said...

"Presumably in the opposite order."

No! Read it again and absorb it this time.

Don't worry, you wouldn't be the first one to have trouble with that one.

That's the "reality" part I'm talkin' about. Everyone's so hypnotized, they'll believe a lot of really stupid things, just because they heard it on the MSM, which has been deceiving the public for years.

The "official" report on 9/11 is a prime example. It is a barrage of such stupid things. Anyone with a functional brain sees this immediately, and recognized there was a betrayal happening before their own eyes on that day.

All you really have to do to prove WTC7 was a deliberate demolition is ask yourself if such a thing has ever happened before or after 9/11, without being deliberately rigged.

If you care to do your own research, you'll find very quickly that it's a no-brainer that should cause you scrap this webpage, which is filled with some known "sketchy" reference pieces.

angrysoba said...

This is a parody, right?

It certainly fits the stereotype of the Truther to a T part of which is to exhort people (or rather sheeple) to "turn off the TV" and "wake up", to do some real research and not to listen to the Lamestream media and fail to make any sort of substantial point.

But it is a little too obvious to be convincing. Nice try though.

Devil's Advocate said...

"It certainly fits the stereotype of the Truther.."

Why? Is it because I call you out for flawed journalism, or because I simply don't agree with your uneducated version of things??

I love how, when someone can't simply defend their work when someone questions it, the answer is to resort to childish, curious labels.

It's like that "Bushism" your country just ate up, "You're either with us, or you're with the TERRORISTS!" Anyone that questions anything now is automatically pronounced "unpatriotic", "radical", "conspiracy nutjob", or "terrorist".

I'm a clear-thinking individual, and a Canadian. Not a "truther" or a member of anything. Just someone who's saddened by how Americans have been completely TAKEN by their government for so long, and seemingly unable to think for themselves.

9/11 was a pretty big CLUE, and half of the USA completely MISSED it. Because they're not truly awake anymore.

Just the way you were fooled into "fighting the good war" in Vietnam for about 30 years, you're now being lied to again in order to get your support for 2 more illegal and unnecessary wars.

Your promising young men go out and die, fighting an "enemy" your own government continues to create as needed.

Still think you're being "Punk'd"?!

angrysoba said...

Why? Is it because I call you out for flawed journalism, or because I simply don't agree with your uneducated version of things??


No, it's because you haven't made one substantial point and yet you've littered your comments with very basic errors.

I love how, when someone can't simply defend their work when someone questions it, the answer is to resort to childish, curious labels.


I don't need to defend my work because you have not even made a substantial criticism of it. Rather, it is you making childish taunts about my ignorance, lack of understanding of physics and reality, a TV junkie, an uncritical absorber of MSM, without a functional brain, unable to do my own research and blah, blah, blah...

So far, I haven't received one criticism which merits a response, but I'm a nice guy so I'm humouring you.

Anyone that questions anything now is automatically pronounced "unpatriotic", "radical", "conspiracy nutjob", or "terrorist".

Did I call you any of those things?

I'm a clear-thinking individual,

I won't believe you without evidence.

and a Canadian.

Well, I'm sorry. Don't take it out on me.

Just the way you were fooled into "fighting the good war" in Vietnam for about 30 years, you're now being lied to again in order to get your support for 2 more illegal and unnecessary wars.


I wasn't fooled by Vietnam at all. I wasn't even born until it was almost over and I'm the wrong nationality to be involved anyway. These are a few of the many errors I referred to earlier.

It's probably best you just come clean and tell me you're not really a "truther", you're just having a laugh. Then we won't have to waste each other's time.