The Collapse of Building Seven

Building seven was a 47 storey tower, which collapsed just seven hours after the twin towers, however this building was not hit by a plane. How exactly did this tower collapse?

The investigators of the National Institute of Standard and Technology, located near Washington DC, said fires on several different floors caused the collapse of building seven. This would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of a fire. Conspiracy theorists argue that the tower was brought down in a controlled demolition.

National Institute of Standard and Technology lead investigator, Dr Shyam Sunder said, “Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was Twin Towersnormal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings”.

However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse of building seven is impossible. Architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth argue that there must have been a controlled demolition. Founder of the group, Richard Gage says it’s an obvious example of a controlled demolition using explosives. “Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11. A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually free-fall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process. Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance. They don’t go straight down through themselves”.

Investigators have made four extremely complex computer models worked out to the finest detail to figure out the mystery of the collapse of building seven, as there is no steel to study. They believe the fires burnt long enough to weaken and break the connections that held the steel structure together.

The collapse of building seven is said to be caused by uncontrollable fires. What are your views? Comment below.

 

 


Get CONSETT MAGAZINE straight to your inbox.

* indicates required

9 COMMENTS

  1. Justin is right. I would disagree that the government’s investigation (done by the National Institute of Standards and Technology) worked out anything to the “finest detail.” Their computer simulation isn’t remotely close to what we can see with our own eyes in the video evidence. They concluded there were no explosives even though they never tested for any.
    AE911Truth has gotten NIST to admit that for 2.25 seconds the building fell at freefall speed, which is impossible unless ALL resistance has been removed. This can only be done with explosives. There was also molten metal under Building 7 (and the twin towers) that burned for three months after 9/11 – impossible from simple office fires.
    To learn more, I would recommend Explosive Evidence: The Experts Speak Out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgUvOnlErn4) from AE911Truth and September 11: The New Pearl Harbor (http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167).

    My own blog, Truth and Shadows, has also examined Building 7 in these two articles and hundreds of comments: http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/the-disappearing-building-7-a-911-smoking-gun/ and http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/barry-jennings-and-the-truth-about-building-7/

  2. Albury Smith is a full-time shill who spews out baseless attacks on the 9/11 Truth Movement for reasons only he knows. The NIST report has been shown to be a fraud. Maybe Mr. Smith can tell us how a building falls for 2.25 seconds at freefall acceleration without resistance being removed by something?

    • Albury Smith isn’t the topic here, Craig, but would be glad to explain Chandler’s precious ~2.25 seconds at g during WTC 7’s EXTERIOR collapse. Why don’t you allow me to comment on your “forum”?
      The biggest problem with Explosive Evidence: The Experts Speak Out is that there are no EXPLOSIVES, EVIDENCE, or EXPERTS in it.

    • Trust me, “Albury Smith” works for the Israeli government. Here is just one of their propaganda projects:
      http://tinyurl.com/ldpczhw

      Oh and “Albury Smith” is an inside joke. It translate to “I’ll bury Smith” With Smith being the generic name for the world’s billions of valueless gentiles.

      Unfortunately, yes, it IS as bad as that. Israel’s nightmare about 9/11 is the way you can research it from endless angles and hit “Israel” every time.

      Just discovered something interesting about dual citizen Michael Chertoff. It’s already well-known that, as DOJ director, Chertoff blocked and transferred FBI agent Michael Dick when the latter began investigating why an Israeli company, Zim Shipping, broke their lease and vacated their full-story office at WTC just before 9/11. Back in 1979 the CIA listed Zim Shipping as one of a handful of Israeli companies providing cover and support for Mossad. Also on that list was El Al. And according to Wiki, Michael Chertoff’s mother was El Al’s first flight attendant. Gosh, what a coincidence.

      In short, the reason why it looks like a US government operation is the simple fact that the Federal government is infiltrated by “dual-citizens”. And their loyalties are not 50-50 but 0-100.

      What a mess.

  3. NIST admits free fall acceleration. Free. Fall. Acceleration. Like, as opposed to deceleration. Seen office fires, never seen one turn a building to dust.

  4. The government’s official explanations for 911 are maintained through secrecy provided by the United States government. Here are two examples:

    1. For WTC7 the US government’s report still has not explained how a 47-story, steel, fire-proofed, high-rise, not struck by a jetliner suffered the total, global, symmetrical collapse we see in the video with the descent of the roofline seen in the video measured at Freefall Acceleration from fire.
    The government needed to move from the real world to the virtual world creating a computer model to support their claims. However, all of the input data from those computer models has been made secret by the government. This despite the fact that making the models data secret renders it unscientific. For some reason the government is allowed to have it both ways…. claiming the model is scientific even when its data is secret….

    2. The government’s official narrative tells the American public that19 Al Qaeda hijackers acted without any competent intelligence agency support them. This is the claim of the US government and was used as justification in determining who to retaliate against following the attacks. However, this version of their narrative again only stands because once again government secrecy. The US government made twenty-eight pages from the official 9/11 report secret. These pages describe who the actual sponsors of the terrorist were and the fact they did have competent intelligence support.

    These are just two examples, but they are clear and supported by evidence.

  5. It’s apparent that the editors here have the same respect for the free exchange of ideas as Craig McKee exhibits on his Truth and Shadows dog-and-pony show, where all of my more recent comments have been “awaiting moderation” for several years. This is Internet “journalism” at its finest.

  6. If everyone would take a deep breath and do a careful study of Dr Judy Woods’ analysis of what happened to the buildings on 9/11 I believe a whole new thought process would emerge. She has been pushed to the “fringe” conspiracy area since the beginning and I (and many others) believe it is mainly because she is closer to the true disposal of the buildings than anyone.

LEAVE A REPLY