Controlled Collapse Of World Trade Center Building 7?
Controlled collapse of World Trade Center Building 7?
Thanks to dazinith.
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/con...ory.asp?id=255
9/10/2005 10:00:00 AM GMT
How is it possible that a horrific event like September 11 attacks has been subjected to so little investigation? What motivation can justify the great haste with which so much unique physical evidence was destroyed?
Video evidence and eyewitness reports raise very serious questions about the official story of 9/11, pointing strongly to a controlled demolition.
Four years have passed since the attacks took place, but the event is still vivid. Among the weirdest things about the 9/11 official story is what happened to World Trade Center Building 7, the third skyscraper to collapse into rubble although wasn’t hit by a plane. It only had small fires on some of its lower floors.
Analysts describe the implosion of WTC7 as additional evidence of government complicity.
The building included the City of New York's emergency operations center, a specially reinforced floor with extra strong windows; specially designed to withstand 160 mph winds. This means that when the Twin Towers collapsed, that center would have been the safest place in the building.
Let’s take a deeper look into the theory that explosives or other additional means were used to bring down the Twin Towers.
If there was a deliberate demolition of the twin towers or if there was a local center for directing the flights via remote control, the emergency operations center on the 23rd floor would have been the most logical location. The building was evacuated shortly after the first plane crash, and the fires on a few floors would ensure that the building would stay evacuated.
The video publicly available suggests that controlled demolition brought down building 7.
To bring down huge structures without damaging their surroundings, demolition companies load explosives on different levels of the building so that it collapses into its own footprint.
In the available video footage we see the building falling straight down, without any toppling over. If fire had weakened supports in the lower floors, it is reasonable to assume that the collapse would have been much more irregular.
Also the video shows the rooftop penthouse, which had mechanical equipment for the building's utilities, dropping a split second before the exterior walls, further evidence it was a controlled demolition. In bringing down skyscrapers through controlled demolitions the building’s internal parts collapse before the walls, and then the walls are drawn inward to fall on top of the building's interior parts.
If WTC 7 was intentionally demolished, then the towers probably were too.
The official theory, known as the Pancake Effect, argues that steel supports melting in the intense fireball, causing the floors to tumble down on each other.
But Kevin R Ryan, a laboratory director at a U.S. underwriting firm specializing in product safety who was fired two years after September 11 attacks on the United States because of questioning the official 9/11 story, have stated that the “buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by the burning jet fuel.” “If steel did soften or melt, this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans.”
Ryan asserted that the steel used in the towers were checked and approved by his firm when they were built, but his assertion was later denied by his bosses who decided to fire him for his remarks.
When the first plane hit on the North Tower, it destroyed 33 of the 59 columns in its north face, which meant that the damage was asymmetrical, and the resulting collapse would be lopsided. But the building fell evenly. The TV aerial on the summit sank vertically, in a straight line.
Also the Kean Commission has stated that when the first plane hit: ‘A jet fuel fireball erupted and shot down a bank of elevators, bursting into numerous lower floors, including the lobby level, and the basement four storeys below ground.’
A firm by a French documentary crew, who by chance were following a New York firefighting team that day, shows the first men arriving. The lobby was covered in fine debris and the windows were shattered but there was none of the soot or oily residue that burning jet fuel would were found. Down in the basement, a 50-ton hydraulic press was reduced to rubble and a steel and concrete fire door was destroyed. Witnesses at that time said that the destruction was less like that from a bomb.
Also firefighters said that they thought that bombs were placed and detonated inside the building.
Had some homegrown agency mined the towers to make sure they fell – but neatly without collapsing over the rest of Manhattan, America’s financial and business heartland?
Also Michael Taylor, an expert demolition contractor from Pennsylvania, was quoted as saying that the fall of the buildings ‘looked like a controlled demolition’.
Van Romero, another expert, and vice-president for research at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, made similar remarks after studying videos of the attack,
“Explosive devices inside the buildings caused them to collapse”, said Romero.
But ten days later and without explanation, Romero recanted that view.
