![[IMG]](https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/8/7/2487397/f51b6654-122e-44b5-8cbc-df53e48f74bf-668x522.png)
So the honest old minister went to the room where the two swindlers sat working away at their empty looms.
"Heaven help me," he thought as his eyes flew wide open, "I can't see anything at all." But he did not say so.
See also Why collapse WTC-7 by perfect implosion on 9/11 ... when they didn't have to?
When this page was created in 2017 I believed that the footage of WTC-7's collapse was genuine, however, I learnt from Simon Shack's Clues Forum in Oct 2024 that it is faked (as was that of the twin towers) which makes perfect sense because although the footage shows a destruction that seems to resemble a controlled demolition, for such a tall building (226m) we might expect explosives laid at intervals throughout the building as we see laid for the Mina Plaza complex, Abu Dhabi (tallest building in 169m) and regularly laid explosives at intervals would be too much of a giveaway. Moreover, wherever we don't have quite the truth we are always at a disadvantage.
Mina Plaza, Abu Dhabi, (tallest building 169m) demolition shows explosives placed at regular intervals:
WTC-7's destruction does not clearly show explosives ... but nor a lick of flame or any other clear signs of destructive agent. The building simply sinks gracefully:
![[IMG]](https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/8/7/2487397/wtc-7-vantage-6.png)
A problem from a casual viewing using the fakery lens: I believe it makes no sense for either the fire or controlled demolition hypothesis for the mechanical penthouse (HVAC, etc machinery) atop WTC-7 to collapse before any signs of weakening of the main structure. Also, after the east penthouse collapses what seems to happen in the west penthouse is that the eastern side of it seems to extend and then retract which is further against expectations.
Video (10m) by Simon Shack on the fakery of the footage of WTC-7's collapse first published on YouTube in 2009 - oh dear, so very long ago, and still most truthers have no idea, myself included until just now. A few of the points made:
Hypothesis 1a (H1a) - The cause of WTC-7's destruction was controlled demolition.
Hypothesis 1b (H1b) - The case for "fire" made by NIST as cause for WTC-7's collapse is fraudulent in two ways: 1) in its rationale for not investigating controlled demolition as the most obvious hypothesis; 2) in its explanation of how fire brought the building down
Hypothesis 1c (H1c) - They tell us with clear indications beyond the obvious hallmarks of controlled demolition that are displayed.
Hypothesis 2 (H2) - WTC-7 was brought down as a result of fire
All 9 points below support Hypotheses 1a, b and c (H1a, H1b, H1c) better than they support Hypothesis 2 (H2)
Note: There were originally 10 points but since discovering the footage was faked there are now only nine. Despite this massive change in perception of the evidence my original points still stand reasonably well with a few modifications.
Thermite not used
Note - change of mind, Sep 2019: One of my points was on molten steel in the WTC rubble as has been told us by various sources but I realised from a YouTube post that this is just a story from the "controlled opposition". "Molten steel" seems to be part of the thermite-used-as-means-of-demolition theory but from all the evidence I can find on YouTube thermite produces a lot of light which we don't see and seemingly, it doesn't work well coming from the side, it really only works when put on top of the thing it it's destroying according to this poster in response to a question on Quora about destroying a multi-storey building. Moreover, there seem to be no other examples of thermite being used to destroy a building and we'd have to wonder about that. Why no other buildings other than the WTC buildings? This is destruction of a car done using thermite where we see molten steel and light. We do see what looks like molten steel dripping from one of the twin towers but that could be faked or done earlier or whatever. My feeling is that all the demolitions were done by pretty conventional means and WTC-7 is just the most perfect implosion you will ever see. It is truly magnificent.
"Thermite destroys by causing intense heat as it burns, setting fire to and/or melting whatever it is in contact with.
Because of this, it is really only useful for destroying things when you can place the thermite on top of something. Burning through something from the side would involve somehow keeping the thermite in place while it burned, which is very hard because whatever you are using to hold it in place will be subject to the same heat as the thing you are trying to destroy!
It would be impractical, because of this and other reasons."
I'm not sure the purpose of this lie - is just to fragment and therefore the opposition argument or perhaps it will feature somehow in the bogus legal case being run by the bogus Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry (similar to the completely fabricated 9/11 Commission). 9/11 is very much a completely controlled story where both the official story side and the truther side are controlled by the perpetrators.
Before you go into serious evaluation mode, I recommend watching these two informative 4-minute "music" videos about WTC-7's collapse produced by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (who, while they have done excellent work on the building collapses, are nevertheless part of the government-sponsored controlled opposition and have infiltrated genuine 9/11 truthers).
1. They tell us - They always give us the clues when they're hoaxing us.
1A. Conversation between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant about WTC-7, the third building to collapse at the WTC on 9/11, after its collapse:
"Can you confirm it was No 7 that just went in?" ["Went in" is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]
"Yes, sir."
"And you guys knew this was comin' all day."
"We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down."
1B. Jane Standley announced on BBC television that WTC-7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it did. How is this possible for an unplanned collapse by fire?
1C. Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC-7, says he said to "pull it", a term used in controlled demolition that no doubt originates in pulling buildings down using ropes and chains. Obviously, it wouldn't have been at his command the building came down, it would have all been pre-planned, his words are just a "sign".
2. Foreknowledge of controlled demolition - There were a number of indications of foreknowledge of WTC-7's collapse, including two that specifically indicate that the foreknowledge was that the building may or would come down by controlled demolition rather than from any other cause:
3. No reason to suspect fire - While, during the course of the day, there were fires in the building, the videos of the collapse do not show WTC-7 as being affected adversely by fire but, in any case, no high rise steel frame building had been brought down from fire prior to 9/11. (From 9/11, the only steel frame buildings which are said, by a shrinking number of people, to have come down by fire are four whose cause of collapse is under contention (the three buildings at the World Trade Centre on 9/11 and the Plasco building in Tehran) thus, in the history of the world (if we exclude those four), no high rise steel frame building has ever come down from fire.) Many high rise steel frame buildings have been aflame for hours without suffering total collapse. WTC-5, for example, was completely ablaze but it did not collapse on 9/11.
Note: Regardless of how much fire there was in the building, the fact that people mentioned in points 4 and 5 below make no allusion whatsoever to fire further supports the claim that whatever the presence of fire, it was not a factor in the collapse of the building. Moreover, apart from the two indications of foreknowledge mentioned in point 2 there were other indications of foreknowledge where journalists said the building had come down (before it actually had) or said that it was going to come down. In none of these cases was fire mentioned as cause. One would expect that if fire was going to bring a building down the signs would be obvious and that the journalists would mention it but they do not. While pointing at the building, Ashleigh Banfield from MSNBC said, "I've heard several different reports from several different officers now that that is the building that is going to go down next. In fact one officer told me that they're just waiting for that to come down at this point." Going to go down next? Waiting for that to come down? But why?
COMMENT: At first sight, there is no reason to suspect fire as cause of WTC-7's collapse thus H2 has no support from initial observation or from precedence, a precedence that, considering the number of high rise steel frame buildings which have been on fire, is not coincidental but reflective of the fact that physical laws prevent such buildings collapsing from the effects of fire.
4. Lay people on the day alluded to controlled demolition - When the collapse was reported, journalists such as news anchor, Dan Rather, compared the collapse to controlled demolitions they'd seen before but made no allusion to fire. Dan Rather said, "Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down." The Free Fallin' video above also contains audio and visuals of journalists alluding to controlled demolition.
COMMENT: These people have been scripted to allude to controlled demolition ... then afterwards when questioned just brushing what they said away. At the same time, we have every reason to believe the building was destroyed by controlled demolition because that's the only way we know that high rise steel frame buildings come down.
5. Note: We can surmise that the people mentioned in this point are scripted, they are not speaking candidly, even though, as already stated, we have every reason to believe the building came down by controlled demolition, the footage is faked. Tom Sullivan's allusion to thermite being being quieter is also misleading push of the "thermite" propaganda stream.
Professionals in the field of controlled demolition recognise CD from manner of collapse - As perhaps suggested by Point 4, when a building collapses by controlled demolition the MANNER of its collapse from an OUTSIDE perspective tells all. We need know nothing about the state of the building itself pre-collapse. Collapses by controlled demolition don't look or behave remotely like any other type of collapse.* (Similarly, I am unaware of a (non-steel frame) building collapsing from fire that didn't look as if it was collapsing from fire.) This is why when two men in the field of demolition, explosives loader, Tom Sullivan and demolition expert, Danny Jowenko talk about the collapse of WTC-7, they have no hesitation in stating that it was a controlled demolition just from observing it. (For those concerned about the lack of typical loud boom-boom-boom noises as the building collapses, Tom Sullivan explains that thermite, a heat-based cutting charge, is much quieter than the more commonly used explosives charges. He also mentions that remote technology can be used to control the demolition rather than det cord for those concerned with the logistics of the clandestine nature of the setup.)
6. NIST's exclusion of CD based on unscientific rationale - NIST excluded investigation of the most obvious hypothesis of controlled demolition based on the claim that there were no loud sounds of explosions heard. This is not enough reason to exclude the only know method for high rise steel frame buildings to come down. Of course, we don't know what sounds were made because we cannot trust what we see or hear.
COMMENT: Supports H1b
7. NIST's explanation based purely in theory and speculation not in physical reality - In their FAQ on the WTC-7 investigation, NIST answers the question, "How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?" thus:
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.The statement "heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand ... leading to a girder ... [losing] its connection to ... [the critical] column 79" is based purely in the realm of speculation and theory. The phenomenon of "thermal expansion" leading to such an event, happened, allegedly, as far as anyone knows, for the only time in history in WTC-7 on 9/11. There is also no clear evidence of what one might think of as "uncontrolled fires". All the video evidence of fires in WTC-7 suggests the fires were of a modest nature and in the videos of collapse there is really no clear evidence of fires at all. WTC-7 fires were never anything like those in WTC-5, for example, which did not collapse.According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
Apart from the highly speculative and theoretical nature of the claim that thermal expansion pushed a girder off its seat, in his highly-recommended tutorial on the collapse of WTC-7, Richard Gage, of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, states that a stiffener would have prevented such an occurrence.
Again, the claim that the "displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor" is very much in the realm of speculation and theory, theory that really is quite absurd as it has no basis in reality.
The irony. Those who challenge the fire hypothesis are called "conspiracy theorists" but the claims for fire as cause of collapse are all completely in the realm of theory, moreover theory that does not even abide by the basic laws of physics. There is not a SINGLE SKERRICK of evidence to support the fire hypothesis. Not a single skerrick. Everything said by NIST about fire being cause is in the realm of theory. NIST did not look at any physical evidence - most of the steel was hastily and illegally shipped off before it could be examined but whatever remained - the handfuls of dust and the small number of structural pieces - they did not examine. The only other evidence is the observable data in the fall itself, footage before and after, photos and witness testimony. However, NIST created a model, according to their theory, that does not match the reality of the fall and their model does not follow the collapse to the end. Their justification for this truncation is that their task was to only look at what initiated the collapse, however, if this was, indeed, their task, one must ask why it was restricted in this way as it means that any explanation would, by definition, lack completeness - who's to say for example that there wasn't one cause for initiation of collapse and another to complete it? NIST also fraudulently ignored witness testimony. Everything they say is speculation about what happened in the INSIDE of the building but NIST uses no forensic physical data and we have no other information about the inside of the building to tell us what happened - the presence of fire is in no shape or form evidence of cause of collapse. As already stated, many steel-frame buildings have suffered far greater fire than WTC-7 did without showing any signs whatsoever of collapse.
COMMENT: H1b fits better than H2
8. Ex-NIST employee discusses absurdity of NIST's explanation (with backup from experts) - From 1997 until 2011, Peter Michael Ketcham worked at NIST as a computational scientist and was Chair of the Applied Mathematics Series for a time. While he was aware of the investigations into the WTC building collapses he did not pay much attention and it wasn't until 2016 when a friend mentioned to him that there was a growing body of evidence showing that the official story was incorrect that he started to look at the NIST reports. Within a short space of time he realised that the NIST investigation was not sincere and genuine and became furious with himself for not having paid attention earlier. He describes the report on WTC-7's collapse as being like a Rube Goldberg device (in its explanation of how a single column failure caused a domino effect leading to failure of columns across the building) and follows this by likening it to the Emperor's New Clothes (in how the model of the collapse is both oddly truncated and does not match the reality of the collapse). No one from NIST has come out and condemned or otherwise said a word about Ketcham's statements.
COMMENT: H1b fits better than H2
9. Experts in relevant professions speak out - A number of expert members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have spoken out to say that the evidence strongly supports controlled demolition and that the NIST report on WTC-7 is fraudulent and nonsensical - see videos below. While the number of members of A&E9/11 Truth is only about 3,000, there is only a miniscule number of experts who have come out in support of the NIST report.
COMMENT: A relatively small but very significant number of experts speaking out about such a crime supports H1a/1b better than H2. Also, it's content that counts.
To see the 1-hour version of the 1.5 hour film see 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out
Below are some of the interviews with experts used in the film although there are a number more experts in the film.
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com
