Opinion on this explanation for the collapse of WTC7?

Question

I have been reading up on the various conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. Of them all I find the collapse of WTC7 the most fascinating. I searched for an official explanation of how the building could have collapsed and came across this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYzLu7gDbJs

I wasn't convinced at all with this explanation and I would like an expert opinion from the architects and engineers out there and hear what they think about it.

Answer 1

I did not watch the whole of your clip. It appears to be part of the recent BBC propaganda piece. It was irresponsible for BBC to release that hit piece prior to our government releasing the official explanation for the collapse of building 7. That irresponsibility adds to the growing pile of evidence of BBC complicity to cover up mass murder.

What a joke some of these answers are. People are so misled about the significance of the jet fuel. Excellent main stream media brainwashing there! Even NIST agrees that most of the jet fuel burned up soon after impact.

Try this site, Journal of 9/11 Studies for information about the demolitions

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Watch Richard Gage's film

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

and visit the web site of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

http://www.ae911truth.org/

For current information, read this peer reviewed article recently published in the Open Civil Engineering Journal (PDF download)

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/conten...

That NIST acknowledges the 14 points would probably come as a complete surprise to people who believe the jet fuel played a significant role in the collapses.

The 14 points are interesting, but what is more interesting are the points noted for NIST to provide further and better information. NIST is covering up, and eventually they will be forced out into the open.

If people think NIST's investigation into the collapses is finished, they are sadly mistaken. See the last paragraph of their FAQ page re the destruction of the towers, to quote:

"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements"

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs...

Most people are unaware that NIST's hypotheses go only up to the point where collapse is inevitable and not beyond? How is that a full explanation. Why do they not take it all the way and explain exactly what happened DURING the collapse? Seems like a cop-out to me.

And, seven years after the event we still await the official explanation for the collapse of the third tower, building 7,

"Draft NIST Report on the World Trade Center Investigation

NOTE: The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

INTERESTING. NIST changed that promise date for the WTC7 report very recently. I check it every time I source it. The last time I checked (about a week ago), it stated the WTC7 report would be available in July, 2008. I thought it was odd that the BBC hit piece about WTC7 would come out immediately before the official report. Initially I wondered if BBC was attempting to get good ratings by releasing their piece simultaneous with release of the official report, but obviously that is not the case. I was suspicious of BBC's agenda before, and more so now knowing that NIST has changed their "promise date" for the WTC7 report. Hmmm?

Will we ever see the official explanation for WTC7. I doubt it. They cannot explain it scientifically without calling it a controlled demolition. If they attempt to try to whitewash that one, they will unduly expose themselves to criminal charges for complicity in mass murder. If I were providing legal advice to NIST, I would advise against releasing any official report for building 7. That would be too risky. With many millions of people now awake, a new investigation is inevitable and NIST then must protect itself first rather than protect criminals involved with the events of 9/11.

Be careful where you read about 9/11. There are staged government disinformation sites all over the web, designed to throw you off and to discredit the truth movement by putting forth ridiculous theories that are easily debunked (e.g. the "no planes theory" for 9/11). There are paid government disinformation agents all over the internet, posing as regular users in forums such as this one. Generally, if the people presenting a web site are not willing to be named (and you cannot verify that they are real people), I would recommend confirming what you read there from sites where owners do disclose who they are. Some of my Yahoo Contacts had a discussion about that recently when one of them noticed what appears to be a 9/11 disinformation site. See:-

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 2

No "expert" opinion needed,

in order to do what we all observed that morning,

TENS OF THOSANDS OF WELDS

would have to FAIL right on "Q"

it was an engineered event.!

Answer 3

The video you linked to says "burning out of control for SEVEN HOURS"

Since you specifically asked for an opinion, I'll give you my opinion: TROLL

Answer 4

Missing from the video is the valid evidence that the 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored in tanks fed this fire which was pretty much unattended for over seven hours.

Of particular interest in the investigation were the two 6,000-gallon diesel tanks installed below grade. Through pressurized pipes, these fed nine emergency generators on the fifth floor. When the tanks were found beneath the debris, they were empty, but diesel fuel was not detected in the ground below, which seems to preclude leakage directly from the tanks. The only logical conclusion is that this diesel continued to feed the fire throughout the day and was consumed.

It is the general consensus that if any of the main trusses failed, the building would indeed collapse upon itself. The structural steel in these trusses need not melt to fail - it is known that they lose about 50% of their strength at 1100 degrees F. The fire proofing could have been damaged by debris or simply overwhelmed by the seven hours of exposure to the fire itself.

By their own admission, the construction of this building presented many dificulties to the engineers and archetech and the extra fireproofing and other structural changes implemented in the new building wasn't a priority - in all fairness to the engineers, a catatrophe of this magnitude could not have been predicted - and short of such a catastrophe, the building was more than adequate and would have easily remained structually sound in a "normal" fire situation.

The exact nature of the collapse may never be known - but the events on 9/11 certainly were sufficient to cause the structural failure in Building 7 and the resulting collapse.