A Logical Review of The Collapse of Building 7 on September 11th, 2001
When asked the question of how many buildings fell in New York on Sept 11th most reply 2, and very few reply correctly that 3 actually fell. When you finally decide to go view the collapse of building 7 for yourself, some very logical questions may come to mind. So in the remainder of this text we will review some of the many reasons, they keep changing them, that building 7 of the World Trade Center Complex fell to the ground like a house of cards on 9/11, when in fact, it was not struck by any aircraft!
On the date Sept 11th 2001 we are told that large portions of the WTC 1 impacted the south face of building 7. It is claimed that large portions from around the 17th floor down, were basically scooped out of 7, as a result. Now the North tower stood some considerable distance from bldg 7. If the north tower came down in a gravitational collapse, how is it logical that large portions would have fallen into bldg 7? A gravitational collapse of the North Tower would have almost all the falling material fall straight down, and not be expelled great distances to impact bldg 7! Yet we are told that this is indeed what happened, even though the scenario of a gravitational collapse cannot account for massive chunks being flung considerable distances. Can you find logic in that? I for one cannot.
Officials, NIST, go on to describe the damage to the interior truss work that was a major component of the building. These truss members were built to house electrical substations which could not be moved before construction. NIST contends that the failure of these truss members were a key part of the cause of the collapse. Now take into mind that these substations were on the south face of the building near where the debris from the North tower supposedly hit. It would stand to reason that if these truss members were the primary load bearing members, if that load bearing was compromised we would see the building begin to fall back to the south side where all this massive damage is purported to be. Indeed, this is not what we see. We see the building descend straight down, NOT, lean back to the damaged area, as what we would logically expect to see.
NIST officials then go on to include their Thermal Expansion theory, into the mix for good measure. It would seem their theory does not tend to fit logic when you actually look at what they are saying. NIST claims that the failure of one column under the penthouse was caused by the thermal expansion of floor joist pulling it apart. Never mind the fact that there were no fires in the area that were remotely capable of reaching the temperatures needed to do this! Never mind the fact that the entire floor joist was attached to the concrete flooring via 4 inch embeds to prevent just a scenario!
Once again, NIST went with the theory that the fires inside 7 were indeed fueled by the huge diesel tanks located in the lower sections of the building. They once held the position that the pressurized fuel lines ignited, and acted as blow torches to heat and deform the steel. After they stepped back and looked at how absurd that scenario was, they abandoned it! I mean, it would have been a logical answer, if we could see any fire in bldg 7 that remotely resembles massive pressure fed diesel fires! But then, diesel will not burn hot enough to even weaken the steel to allow for this scenario either. No, we can see no evidence as to large infernos of the type NIST would like you to believe were there.
Overall, the explanations given by NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 Commission; oh wait, the 9/11 Commission did not even bother to mention bldg 7, are inadequate to say the least. FEMA did somewhat of a half baked investigation when they found some very strange melted steel in bldg 7 debris they could not explain. Alas, they would not even go on to further study the cause of this inter granular melting of the steel members. Now how logical can that be?
In all the presentation given by NIST as to the collapse of bldg 7 in no way represents any form of logical thought or critical thinking on their part in my opinion. It is common practice to test for exotic accelerants or explosive in an investigation when high order amounts of damaged are observed. I would say that what we see could be considered high order damage, yet NIST admits it did no test whatsoever for any type of explosives. Excuse me, but that not only tends to defy logic, but basic common sense as well!
No, I can see no logical reason as to the collapse of bldg 7. Luckily there are those out there that are better equipped with the tools of logic and critical thought than NIST and FEMA obviously do not have. Indeed there was a scientist who found considerable amounts of high tech pyrotechnic explosives in the dust from the buildings. All three!
If you take into account the finding of explosive material in the debris, the collapse of bldg 7 starts to come into the realm of logic when you actually see the building fall. Because we do not see this building lean to the side it is supposed to be heavily damaged on. We do not see the building collapse to the east where NIST claims the columns failed to cause the collapse. What we do see is a building descend straight down into its own foundation as to not damage any surrounding buildings considerably. When you take into account the explosive material, then what we see makes perfect sense.
No, I can find no clear logical reason for the collapse of bldg 7. Neither did NIST if you read their report! For that matter, there is no logical reason any of those buildings should have fallen. Maybe we should ask Larry Silverstein why they fell. After all he did imply that the building was taken down. His words not mine!
Yes, it would seem that logic, as well as a few other laws of physics seem to have taken a break that day. Or maybe we are just so blinded by all the lies and falsehoods we are told, we can no longer think along logical, not to mention critical lines of thought!
