WTC 7, pt. 2

I’m going to delve deeper into the World Trade Center 7 collaspe in order to expand on the idea that the building was brought down in a controlled demolition. I will add many links to my points as a quick reference for you the reader; they will be denoted numerically. If you want to disregard the information I will bring forward later on in this post and go back to doing whatever it is you were doing before clicking here, check out this Popular Mechanics explanation of the WTC 7 collapse(1). It will give you just a good enough explanation, so that you can forget that you ever considered this 9/11 conspiracy stuff. Don’t worry that NIST in one of their explanations said that the building came down due to the fact that one third of the lower part was scooped out from the debris field of the twin towers and the fact that intense fires melted the steel, yet provide no photographic evidence to the public to support this theory. For the rest of you that want to dig beneath the surface, let’s proceed.

First off, let’s get to the bottom of this fire melting steel idea. I’m going to utilize Celsius temperature measure for your reference. The melting point of structural steel is around 1550 degrees C. The effective yield stress of steel for design purposes is at 1200 degress C (2). I’m not sure exactly what ‘effective yield’ means, but for the benefit of the doubt, let’s say that structural steel loses its integrity at 500 degrees C. With that said, the max temperature that jet fuel burns at is 980 degrees C, but in an open air environment it burns at around 260-315 degrees C (3). By the way, WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, so we’re not even dealing with jet fuel fires. So are we to believe that fires burning at 300 degrees C, which would be burning unevenly, can bring down a steel building, when steel holds strong at those temps? Maybe it was the damage from the twin towers that hit one side of WTC 7 and yet brought it basically straight down…but remember that WTC 5 & 6 stood in the way and didn’t fall on 9/11. Have you seen pictures of building 7 before it’s collapse? Were there huge fires engulfing the entire structure?…NO. Keep that in mind and take a look at the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, that burned for almost a day and was blazing with fire, and yet only a portion of the building fell (4). The Windsor building was steel reinforced concrete and not 100% steel like WTC 7. No steel building has ever completely fallen due to fire before or after the three collapses on 9/11.

Oh and one more thing to note about jet fuel fires supposedly causing steel buildings to collapse. I believe we can agree that jet fuel fires do NOT burn hot enough to reach the melting point of steel. Then why did firefighters witness molten steel weeks after the twin towers collapsed (5)?

Then there is the footage of firefighters telling people to back up from WTC 7 because it was going to come down and that they were going to blow it up. Could they have known it was going to come down? That would have been a great assumption. Well, why would they say, “blow up”? Interesting. If you think that maybe their quotes were taken out of context or that maybe there was some confusion on that day which led to these statements, I implore you to check out the video clips for yourself (6).

What about this Larry Silverstein character? Is it plausible that WTC 7 was rigged with explosives long before the 9/11 attacks due to the building being condemned? If that’s the case, then why wouldn’t Mr. Silverstein just come out and say that. Whether or not you think insurance companies are in business to be compassionate and heart-warming and don’t worry about the bottom line, it’s just a little bit strange that Silverstein took out a 99-year lease on the WTC properties just six weeks before the attacks. I’m not sure if there was a terrorism clause in the deal, but either way it was pretty lucky timing (7). His company was awarded $2.2 billion because Silverstein argued that the towers consisted of two terrorist attacks, not one. After considering the matter further, it could’ve been in the best interest of the insurance company to award Silverstein the money as a good PR move to generate more business from the positive press. I guess it doesn’t really matter whether the insurance company heads are good and honest people or if there was a backroom deal that was made with Silverstein. The point is the opportune timing of Silverstein’s business venture prior to 9/11. The coincidences don’t stop there. Just one other coincidence is the fact that Marvin Bush, George W’s brother, was a principal in Securacom from 1993 to 2000, a company that provided security to the World Trade Center and other places that were involved in elements of the 9/11 attacks (8), (9).

The BBC reported the WTC 7 collapse over twenty minutes before it actually took place, along with a few other news sources. The BBC actually announced it as the building still stood behind the reporter. Well, maybe there was confusion on that day. We had already seen two giant steel buildings collapse at nearly free fall speed, so it could be reasonable to assume a 47-story building would fall too. The strange thing about this psychic report is how the BBC responded to questions about it. They didn’t come out and say where they got the info from or anything to explain the situation. They instead were reluctant and claimed that they lost the original tapes from that day (10). Also, there was some fishy behavior from Google attempting to censor video of this 9/11 report when the story broke that the BBC made an error.

Is 9/11 comparable to the JFK murder? I think so. They were both carried out by corrupt elements within our government. It’s just that the JFK event took place long enough ago that people today are generally complacent about it even in the face of all the evidence pointing to an inside job. What will happen if 9/11 truth doesn’t break into the mainstream, after classified documents are released admitting to government involvement, until years down the road? Will people be just as complacent in the future, agreeing that this horrible 9/11 event was perpetrated by corrupt individuals in our government in 2001, and yet anything in the present time being considered conspiracy theory? The majority of the American public thinks Oswald did NOT act alone in the JFK murder (11), (12). I mean, do you really believe in a magic bullet (13)? Oh and did you check out the most recent Rolling Stone article in which E Howard Hunt, a CIA operative, admits to taking part in the assassination, when he was on his death bed (14)?

Turn off the television news. Turn off Bill O’Reilly and the rest. You are being lied to everyday. These crooks try to insight a feeling of guilt into anyone that questions the 9/11 official story. They always say that it’s disrespectful to the victims families. The main problem with that line of thinking is that it’s not true. Philosophy of truth aside, the majority of the victims families think 9/11 was an inside job. Just consider the statements made by Bill Doyle, the head of one of the largest victims’ families groups. He said that 9/11 contained a lot of complicity by our government and that the truth of that day continues to be covered up (15). It seems to me that one of the strangest things one learns when you begin to research 9/11 is just how many credible people have either questioned the 9/11 official story or said that they think 9/11 was an inside job (16). And it’s very likely that if you hadn’t looked into the matter previously, you might wonder why this info had never been presented to you before on shows like Rush Limbaugh. It might hit a chord to realize that the public continues to be lied to about 9/11. The mainstream media isn’t there to inform you, but to indoctrinate you. Sad but true. Well, the truth is out there for those who want to know. Here’s some great videos to watch to begin to understand the many facets of 9/11:

Watch “Terrorstorm,” which gives you a historical background on government sponsored terrorism (17).

For an in depth look on the controlled demolition of the twin towers, watch “9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions (18).

For more of an overview of the events on 9/11, watch “Loose Change, 2nd edition” (19).


  1. Russ,

    I like reading your posts to expand my mind and hear about your latest conspiracies but I have a question about this one. You’re insinuating that the government (or at least some part of it) controls aspects of the news coverage we read, see and hear. This would mean that thousands of people are somehow able to work together nearly perfectly to spread disinformation (including the BBC a news source based outside the US). It seems like a secret involving so many people would be impossible to keep especially in this era of worldwide communication. Don’t you think someone would slip up?

    - Josh (Apr 16, 2007)

  2. Josh,
    That’s a decent question to ask. It’s hard to comprehend how something as big as 9/11 could be kept under wraps if it were an inside job. By the way, I had problems setting up the links in my post, but they should be up and running soon.

    First off, consider the possibility that WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. If you think this theory makes sense, it means that you were lied to. Bombs cannot be placed in a building in one day to bring it down as it did. It takes weeks to set something like that up.

    To more specifically comment on your question, it would take me much longer to explain my thoughts than in a simple reply. Basically, the structure of the media plays a big part in the news that you receive. It’s a top-down compartmentalized structure where reporters rely on editors’ approval to run with a story. As far as the BBC story I brought up, it shows an example of media scripting, where the ‘governmental authorities’ pass on exactly what they want the media to parrot. Google Operation Mockingbird. Also, American mainstream media’s power is held in the hands of a few corporate leaders. Then there’s the fact that the Bush administration spends billions of dollars on fake prepackaged news.

    Of course you’ve got fear and intimidation and mass ignorance. The question remains is how many people would it really take to carry out the attacks, who were truly ‘in the know’? Several hundred perhaps? Keep in mind that black ops use drills to confuse the real attack with the staged one. Google drills on 9/11. So, there’s a group of people that have the full picture and the rest are used in secluded parts of the whole operation. Then people are paid off or threatened to keep them quiet. Where did those trillions of dollars that the government ‘lost’ which was reported right before 9/11?

    9/11 was a psy-op. The public was bombarded with propaganda after the event, which worked on some level, but the truth is emerging.

    In short, do you not think something of this magnitude can be kept secret? Google the Tuskegee Experiment which was kept under the radar for 40 years!! And consider the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have died in Iraq since 2003 in a phony war, so how different would it be for someone behind sacrificing troops to sacrifice citizens?

    - Russ (Apr 16, 2007)

  3. russ, there’s a South Park episode that you really need to watch; I can’t remember which one it is offhand. A conspiracy of this magnitude could never survive today’s culture. Never. Everyone would love to be a whisteblower and get their 15 minutes of fame…including…conspiracy theorists.

    - mark (May 10, 2007)

  4. Mark,
    The conspiracy of this magnitude is not surviving in today’s culture. Thanks to the free flow of information via the internet, the people have had the opportunity to hear perspectives outside of controlled mainstream media.

    I have seen that South Park episode, by the way. I saw it when it first came out. As much as I think that show is hilarious, I don’t base my opinions off of a potty-mouthed cable cartoon. The main message at the end of the episode is that the government wants people to believe in conspiracy theories because it makes the government seem more powerful. In turn, those conspiracy nuts receive the payoff of feeling safer by living under Big Brother’s strong arms. That rationale doesn’t make sense because to me it seems more threatening to live under a governmental regime that doesn’t mind killing it’s own citizens and then posing as it’s savior than some crazy Muslims in a cave getting lucky once (and getting NORAD to stand down somehow).

    Well Mark, go ahead and believe what you will. (Next time you should comment on the content I espoused at least) Big Brother is your friend and the government loves you, just like the Founding Fathers believed.

    The sad part is that you may not even consider the idea that some of these “conspiracy theorists” may be speaking out, not from a thirst for fame, but from a moral imperative to stand up for their fellow men and women.

    - Russ (May 10, 2007)

Leave a Comment