All you need to see about WTC7

OK. WTC7 collapsed on the afternoon of 9/11. the FEMA report suggests that the building fell from fires, but does not come to any specific conclusion. WTC7 has never since been mentioned by almost any media, and is not mentioned a single time in the 911 'independent' investigation. WTC7 is a major smoking gun of 9/11. you should research it and understand what caused it to fall, and why 'they' would want it to fall.

here is all you need to know:

1) no steel based structure has ever fallen due to fire. you can verify this in fire engineering monthly, do some research on the editor in cheif of that magazine who is adamant that the gov't prevented a real investigation. on 9/11 three steel buildings collapsed 'from fire', 2 were hit by planes, 1 was barely hit by any debris, that building was building 7 (WTC7).. sure there was some debris damage, but nothing like WTC6 and WTC5 and other buildings much closer.

examples of major steel building fires (which did not fall):
caracas skyscraper fire, gutted 16 floors, reached 26 floors, burned for 17 hours
One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, raged for 18 hours, gutted 8 floors
madrid fire 1 2

sample pictures of the WTC7 fire:
burned for a few hours on a specific few floors
pic 1
pic 2

2) fire does not burn hot enough to melt steel (think of the eyes on your stove, the grills you set firewood logs on, etc.) if the theory is that minor fires caused the building to fall then does a freefall collapse sound reasonable? the building fell VERY fast for a building which in theory was falling due to fire causing steel to melt. keep in mind the fires were in specific spots.

videos of the collapse (you may need to right-click and choose 'save as'):
video 1
video 2

3) just prior to WTC7 falling many were being told WTC7 was about to fall. it had been reported as on fire approximately 1-2 hours prior. people were told the building was about to fall even though there was no evidence it was unstable, and no historical data to suggest it was even possible..

here are sample videos of people saying the building was about to come down:
hard hat
news report

4) the head lease owner said in a PBS documentary that they decided to 'pull' the building:
larry silverstein

what does this look like:
close up with good contrast

if the lease owner says it was 'pulled' (controlled demolition).. the video evidence shows it was a controlled demolition.. people were told the buildings were about to collapse and to stay away.. and the fires could not have made the building fall in that manner according to physical evidence and all of world history.. then did WTC7 fall from controlled demolition?

bonus question:
what pulverizes concrete into a fine mist floors below the 'collapse'?

look at this, and start some research into 9/11! everyone said they would never forget, but it seems very few are actually paying attention to the hundreds and hundreds of coincidences and unanswered questions. read the new 911truth press statement, and sign the justicefor911 petition:

please visit for more information about WTC7.

EDIT: on a side note, a worker at ground zero admitted today he helped recover 3 of the 4 black boxes from the towers attack.. the official story says they were never recovered..

I have no problem with facts

I have no problem with facts from 9-11 but honestly... dz, have you NEVER researched why the steal stuctures collapsed? The main towers where the jet fuel heated up the fire much faster than 7 bent the steal stucture, and then the pure weight brought them down. 7 took a little longer. Fire can get hot enough to bend the steal frame even with out the jet fuel, it just takes a little longer. And as a side note... who are "They?" this post sounds nothing more than an uneducated, unresearched anti-american BS.

I have seen some suggest

I have seen some suggest that Larry Silverstein's 'pull' comments were in relation to having firefighters removed from the building.

This is NOT true. According to the FEMA reports the building was evacuated early in the morning and noone was in the building the rest of the day.

Also, when was the last time you heard someone refer to people as 'it'? Taken in context of the sentence, and with the industry term 'pull' the clip of Silverstein aboe is conclusive as to what he meant, that they demolished WTC7 on 9/11.

The only problem is Nate,

The only problem is Nate, that WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane. It's a side building. There was no jet fuel there in similar conditions, though it was said that there may have been diesel fuel. Still no similar building has ever collapsed in what looks like a controlled demolition, from a simple fire. Moreover, this happened during a relatively short period of time. Building failures lead to buildings falling over, not vaporizing in neat piles. The WTC7 building (not WTC 1 or 2) housed the CIA, FBI, IRS and SEC all in one building in NYC. Silverstein, the gentleman who owned the 100 year lease on all of the world trade center buildings once slipped in a taped interview and said that they "pulled" the building. However, the official story does not acknowledge this, and there is no explanation for why they would do this given the video. Lastly, to set up a building for demolition like that takes a days or weeks and can't be done while a building is on fire.

Silverstein was able to collect insurance for the attack. And yet, if the building was pulled, this would be relevant. Why would the facts be hidden? There are serious questions that need to be answered. We spent more than 50 million on Monicagate, and a similar amount on investigating the Challenger disaster - and yet Bush initially budgeted only $3 million to investigating 9/11 and would NOT testify under oath. Neither would most of his advisors? Why?

So, you see, you didn't really address any questions Nate. You just reasserted that you don't want to think about anything. There are plenty of people like that Nate. But they don't need to comment where people are trying to have a discussion of the facts.