Controlled Demolition Theories not a Guarantee

The 9/11 Truth Movement needs to be careful about putting so many of it’s eggs in the controlled demolition basket. The proof for this theory is not as solid as the many other issues related to government involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

In the case of Building 7, the debate now seems to center on the amount of damage the building received when WTC 1 collapsed, and the interpretation of how the building would behave with the varying amounts of damage it could have recieved. Exact measurements of the amount of damage are difficult to prove, as there are no reliable photographs of an important gash in the side of the building. Recollections from firefighters about that day are the best information to go on.

Here is a link which compares information that agrees with the controlled demolition theory alongside ones that disagree with that theory:

Please check out the following recently expanded introduction and summary page which contains audio and video clips about the questions of government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, as well as Alan Miller's list of 50 millitary, intellligence, and goverment officials questioning the 9/11 attacks..

It's not up to us to formulate a valid model of the collapses.

It is sufficient to point out what I think can be easily proven, and moreover, which becomes intuitively obvious with repeated exposure to the video evidence, and that is that the collapses could not have been gravity-driven events, as the official reports suggest. The speed coupled with the pulverization effects just rule that out.

I have seen no argument, no

I have seen no argument, no evidence that in any way undermines the CD hypothesis. To fall into its own foot print at free fall speed requires controlled demo. Core beams and exterior structures have to be cut simultaneously in a controlled sequence to fall into its own footprint.
It is important to know what arguments are floating about but to give them that much credence is revealing.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.

Yes! That's what I forgot to

Yes! That's what I forgot to say above....

I think the opposite is

I think the opposite is true, edward35. The proof of use of explosives in WTC 1,2, and 7 is substantial. The problem with the controlled demolition argument is that there will always be a dearth of "experts" willing to support the government's fable, no matter how shaky its foundation. So, in terms of evidence, there's plenty. In terms of argumentation, 9/11 truth will never win the demolition debate (as Ruppert has pointed out, referring to JFK and physical evidence).

To be clear: I believe without a doubt the WTC was blowed up good. But I also believe the public relations battle to control this topic will never be won by truthers. I'm not happy about that. I'm just saying, that's what I think will happen.

No, I think we need a paper trail of corruption that connects 9/11 to some other crime, a thread to pull on.

Potential reasons for skepticism

I agree that it is the greatest of likelihood that it could have been a controlled demolition, but I believe that it is a very difficult thing to prove, as most of the evidence has been destroyed.

My view is somewhat opposite of many others, I think the Towers could have been a demolition, but WTC7 possibly not.

It is reasonable to believe that WTC7 had received a relatively large amount of initial damage from the collapse of Tower 1, according to reports of many firefighters as well as some photographs which are relatively unclear.

It is important to note that the building did not collapse uniformly, but rather in two separate chunks, as the video footage shows on the following link.. ( watch the top clip carefully... )
Also, it could not have been a completely traditional demolition as there was no blast sounds as it fell. I've witnessed a demolition before, and believe me the blast is loud!

Edward, I don't know which

Edward, I don't know which ones they are, but I've watched [news] video in one of the many 9/11 docs which features the characteristic "snap, crackle & pop" of the outer charges running around the building in the sound track.

Hi ed...

Can you please name these "many" firefighters? Do their reports contradict what NYC police officer and 9/11 rescue worker Craig Bartmer said about the damage to building 7 and the comment you made stating that there were " no blast sounds as it fell"?:

"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions."


"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."

Here's the complete interview with Bartmer (thanks to DBLS and the Louder Than Words crew):

SPEAKING OUT - An interview with Craig Bartmer

More witnesses who heard "blast sounds" can be found at this link:

Demo Expert Confirms WTC-7 Was "Controlled Demolition"

Also, this comment by you makes no sense to me at all:

"It is important to note that the building did not collapse uniformly"

Please clarify.


It shows the machine room sinking in first. This is not even an area affected by fires, or by any 'gouging' of exterior walls. There is no way the machine room can simply collapse first without explosives. I don't understand what you mean by two separate chunks???

You're welcome to believe

You're welcome to believe that. I don't think it changes the overall criminality of the day. You should be aware, however, that saying anything skeptical about WTC 7 seems to bring the wrath of everyone here (hence the ratings you have received for this post). I support your right to make these points, however.

I may be wrong, but I think there were blast sounds as WTC7 fell. I've seen a quote circulated that says something about a thundercrack that precedes the collapse.

Anyhoo, I'm still not convinced that a 47-story steel-reinforced skyscraper could come down so easily, symmetrically, and rapidly without the use of explosives.

See my post above yours,

See my post above yours, simuvac. I posted a link to the quote you're talking about. Here it is:

-Emergency worker:"We were watching the building [WTC7] actually ‘cause it was on fire… the bottom floors of the building were on fire and… we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder… turned around -- we were shocked to see that the building was ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out… it was horrifying… about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that… we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground… we were in shock."

Live 9-11 Report from 1010 WINS NYC News Radio, presented in the documentary "911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 31:30)

Here's another that mentions "blast sounds":

-Reporter Al Jones: "People started to run away from the scene [WTC7] and I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion -- looked like it had been done by a demolition crew -- the whole thing just collapsing down on itself and another big huge plume of gray and white smoke shooting up into the air and then more of the smoke billowing up the street here... so that’s number one, number two, and now number seven that have come down from this explosion."

Live 9-11 Report from 1010 WINS NYC News Radio, presented in the documentary "911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 28:25)

So that's three reports that I'm aware of regarding Building 7 "blast sounds" (including Craig Bartmer's tesimony about hearing explosions while running away from Building 7).


I disagree that Controlled demolition theories are not strong. My first gut feeling when I saw the towers collapse on television was "WTF, this is not real, those bulidings should not have collapsed in this way because of the plane crash" people were talking about explosives at the time on television and we didn't know the scale of the terrorist attack. Initially I assumed the terrorists brought those towers down, somehow with the plane and bombs together, and was waiting, assuming that we would all find out how it happened exactly. We never did find out, all the talk about explosives and secondary devices dissapeared suprisingly fast. Sometimes a gut feeling tells you a lot.


let us not forget that THREE steel-framed buildings came down at near FREE FALL speed, all within a few hours. How can this be an accident? One building? Okay, perhaps you can get away with a bunch of fancy theories if it was one building, but we have THREE here, same day and ONE OF THEM WAS NOT HIT. I don't have a statistical analysis on the probability of three steel frame buildings, one of which was not impacted, coming down this way in the same day, but I hope someone else smarter than me would come out with one.

Kevin Ryan predicted:

Kevin Ryan predicts 1 in a trillion odds. He’s quoted in Steven Jones’ WTC paper: on page 41

To follow the latest "leading hypothesis" [of NIST], what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so that the highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I wouldn't even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction [for WTC 7]).