Have you heard the "Conspiracy Theory" that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition?

Question

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com

Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction

David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report

Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.

Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee

Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety

John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team

Ken Hays executive vice president, Masonry Arts

Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast rec

Perry L: I will be happy to debate the issues with you. Any that you choose. But you will need to find credible sources in support of your allegations. And YouTube simply doesn't make it.

Answer 1

Not a controlled demolition.

For more info on demolition, demolition contractor services, etc. go to Dallas Contracting Co., Inc. website - a demolition expert

Answer 2

Don't believe the idiots here that say "shock of impact" destroyed WTC7. WTC 5 and WTC6 were RIGHT NEXT to WTC 1 and 2, and neither collapsed. WTC7 was very far away on the edge of the plaza and got very little debris from the collapses.

Answer 3

Haven't seen that much bulloney in a while. It was a controlled demolition in the sense that the terrorists controlled it by crashing big airplanes packed with passengers and a full tank of jet fuel into the sides of skyscrapers labeled the WORLD Trade Center (not the U.S. Trade Center). The impact and explosion rocked the building to it's core and compromized the structural integrity of the buildings with massive shock followed by intense heat from the jet fuel dumping down the main shafts, stairways, AC and vent ducts, power and elevator shafts, etc. Concrete and steel weakened to where it couldn't support it's own weight and they collapsed, thankfully, instead of falling sideways. Each floor finished off itself and the one below it clear to the ground and below.
And that's pretty much what happened with NO government or other 'inside' help. Put blame where blame belongs people! The radical Muslim terrorists did all of that. It was their Declaration of War on the World and America!! Please recognize this reality!!

Answer 4

And that explains how the BBC reported that building 7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.

Watch the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0OPFbbSI8Y&mode=related&search=

and check a few in the "related" area on the right too...

AND Silverstein, the owner of WTC 1,2 and 7 admitted that the "fire department decided to pull the building"

More video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9b4D-aO3zY&mode=related&search=

STOP LISTENING TO THE "OFFICIAL" NEWS

Answer 5

This is what we know about WTC 7

"[WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal]"

"Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. ..."All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV]"

It has been stated that a joint investigation into connections between the CIA and Pakistans ISI (Inter Services Intelligence Agency) was underway and that many of its records were also lost.

Before I go any further let me go deeper into the CIA, ISI connection. The CIA gives birth to the ISI during the Afgan war in the 80's as a means to arm and train extremists in a war against Russia. We create and feed the monster then find out through Indian Intelligence Services that Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, the director of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) makes serveral phone calls to Saeed Sheikh on the day funds our transfered to the two leading hijackers who are also known ISI agents. Now its important to note that much of Al Quada and the Talibans arms and funds for terrorist acts came from the U.S, through the ISI. Many of the Taliban camps are funded through the ISI but the extreamists at these camps are trained by Al Qauda itself.

Things starting to look a bit fishy to you?

"In early October 2001, Indian intelligence learned that Mahmoud had ordered flamboyant Saeed Sheikh - the convicted mastermind of the kidnapping and killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl - to wire US$100,000 from Dubai to one of hijacker Mohamed Atta's two bank accounts in Florida. (Pearl was killed while investigating ties between the ISI and CIA)

A juicy direct connection was also established between Mahmoud and Republican Congressman Porter Gross and Democratic Senator Bob Graham. They were all in Washington together discussing Osama bin Laden over breakfast when the attacks of September 11, 2001, happened"

ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed is replaced in the face of US pressure after links are discovered between him, Saeed Sheikh, and the funding of the 9/11 attacks. Mahmood instructed Saeed to transfer $100,000 into hijacker Mohamed Atta’s bank account prior to 9/11. This is according to Indian intelligence, which claims the FBI has privately confirmed the story. [Press Trust of India, 10/8/2001; Times of India, 10/9/2001; India Today, 10/15/2001; Daily Excelsior (Jammu), 10/18/2001] The story is not widely reported in Western countries, though it makes the Wall Street Journal. [Australian, 10/10/2001; Agence France-Presse, 10/10/2001; Wall Street Journal, 10/10/2001] It is reported in Pakistan as well. [Dawn (Karachi), 10/8/2001

We created the conflict with Russia by funding and promoting fundamental extremism. Then after the 9/11 attacks we say oops our bad? If you believe it was an accident after what you just read, I dont know what to tell you.

Now you know why the building was brought down and how wars are started. The question some of you still havent answered is why elements in our government are involved in this. Thats a rabbit hole I dont think you want to explore.

Any other questions?

Answer 6

Dear Mr. Paid Professional Poster,

The truth is coming out regardless of how much smoke your team poors into the air. I hope that we will treat everyone involved with the event and the cover-up with love and compassion.

Your friendly skeptic.

Answer 7

You're such a die hard fan of Bush and his admin spreading this disinformation. Are you getting paid for this? If you are I'd understand and would also like to join.

Answer 8

I was of the belief that there was no conspiracy theory, but with a pathetic statement like you have just given, it really is embarrassing to keep arguing that there was no conspiracy, so if you havent anything better to say could you please shut up. Thank you.

Answer 9

Unfortunately I have. Since when is FEMA the trusted usher of information?

Answer 10

You must be a paid poster...
*drops tinfoil hat*

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561&q=screw+loose+change&hl=en