What caused the fires in WTC7?

[Eckyboy]

For me there are three explanations for the fires in WTC7.
1. Debris from the impacting planes caused damage to building 7.
2. Debris from the collapsing towers caused damage to building 7.
3. The fires were set on purpose in building 7.

Of course it could be a mix of any of the above but I see problems in a few respects. The North Tower impact meant that it would be next to impossible for debris to fall back anywhere near building7. The South tower impact could account for the fires as debris may have reached building 7 however at the last moment the so called Flight 175 turned and hit the south tower at an angle meaning that its debris path would not follow straight through. In all the photos I have seen of Building 7 there does seem to be one that shows a large black hole at the top right hand side of the front of the building. It is possible that part of the debris could have hit it at the edge based on momentum and the fact that some kind of projectile seems to shoot out of the south tower impact debris heading in the vicinity of building 7. This is all speculation however and I am not saying that is what happened just that at the moment it is in the realms of plausibility. Personally I believe the fires were started on purpose within WTC7 although perhaps there was also additional debris from either the plane impacts or the collapse debris. What I am sure of is that no matter how fierce or strong these fires were there is no way that they could make this building neatly collapse straight down in on itself.

[Leiff]

Can you provide a link to the picture of WTC7 with the hole visible?

[andrewwatson]

The official story, that WTC7 collapsed as a result of damage from falling debris, has one huge logical flaw in it. Or, not a flaw maybe, but an admission of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. For how could a 'pancake collapse' of a building falling under its own weight be responsible for ejecting debris hundreds of feet outwardswith a force capable of making a huge '20 storey hole' in the South side of another structure - without the use of explosive charges?

[Andrew Johnson]

I like Professor Steve Jones' simple observation:

A Pancake Collapse should've result in a pile of pancakes.

We saw no such pile in any of the WTC buildings - just pulverisation, and some steel girder sections.

[andrewwatson]

Nice. You'd know, Andrew - has there ever been a case of 'pancake collapse' apart from the WTC?

[Andrew Johnson]

Pancake collapse was only applied to the Sept 11th tragedies - and only to WTC 1 & 2, not 7 (which those defending the official account often ignore). As far as I am aware, it has never been applied to other fire collapses.

[Duke]

Once again, I need major clarification! With regard to all previous posts re WTC7 has anyone seen the amazingly clear footage of a large missile fly directly behind the north tower groundwards. Could this account for any of the qustions raised? I have downloaded so much footage from day one. Ive lost track where it came from, but Ive never seen it anywhere since and have no idea how to transfer it to anyone, but I can send a pic, which I froze as best as I could. I posted it before and got little response. if this is old news and has been explained before please fill me in but to me its a big piece of the puzzle, I just dont know where it fits! and as the man says

" Ask tough questions folks!"


Duke

[Duke]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Duke]

You can just see at the bottom right straight, faint, black trail fumes!

[TimmyG]

I don't think thats proof of a missile. It could well be a piece of plane that is on fire.
or it could be a chunk of thermate from the building

[Duke]

As I stated its the best freeze frame image I could capture. If some kind person could advise me how to post the very clear 5 second footage or so, i will endeavor to show all.

Duke

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Was there any official word on why the sprinklers didn't trigger in WTC1, 2 or 7?

[Duke]

[DeFecToR]

I'm not sure its even worth while debating the nature of the black object in this footage. Yes it seems a little odd (though certainly not an"amazingly obvious" missile), but still the obvious question remains; why on earth would the planners of 911 feel the need to launch any knid of missile
in to WTC7. And surely with so many people still swarming around the area at the time, why was no huge explosion reported at the WTC7 site at the time of the second plane impact. Also, the damage to WTC7 is quite evident in the photos and videos taken, none of which show anything close to missile damage.
Given the theory (one i agree with) that the emergency manegment bunker situated within WTC7 was in fact the control centre for the demolition of the TT, then why would they feel the need to fire a missile at it?

That particular peice of footage sits in the "wierd but unanswerable" pile. Better to stick with evidence that can be tied in with other aspects of the 911 attacks.

Back the the original posters comment; i would agree completely that those fires were indeed deliberately started to provide the (albeit weak) justification to demolish WTC7. After all, it is mentioned twice in two separate official reports that there were no firefighters tackling the blaze in WTC7. That alone is reason to believe the fires were deliberately started.

[Leiff]

WTC7 not deliberately demolished?

'Pull' the other one!

[Skeptic]

There is evidence which would support the idea that the WTC7 fires were started on purpose by the secret service....

The only person to die in the 'collapse' (controlled demolition) of building 7 was Craig Miller - a Secret Service Special Officer

What was he doing inside the building? Especially if the firefighters weren't inside.

I read a theory somewhere that proposed that WTC7 was intended to be demolished during the fall of the North Tower but that something went wrong and they were forced to manufacture a reason for it's sudden collapse......makes sense I guess.....

so long as there is no official explanation for the total collapse of WTC7, it remains the most compelling piece of evidence for a 9/11 inside job

[DeFecToR]

Eh? No not at all. Of course it was deliberately demolished by controlled explosives. There's far too much evidence to say otherwise. What i meant was that the fires were more than likely set deliberately to give some kind of plausable explanation for WTC7's collapse, hense Silverstein's original comments on the PBS special. It would seem that they abandoned this excuse once the obvious errors with the reason were pointed out. I honestly think they thought no one would really care about WTC7, what with all the hysteria over the collapse of the towers and the subsequent war in Afghanistan. They were obviously VERY wrong as what happened to WTC7 is now one of the central tennants of 911 truth.

[DeFecToR]

Oops. Sorry for the confusion in my above post. It was a reply to Leiff's post.

[DeFecToR]

[Skeptic]

well, if you look at the footage you'll see that WTC7 was completely concealed by the pyroclastic clouds from the North Tower's fall - it's hard to say whether there would be more or less footage had it fallen at the same time (or slightly after in order to wait for the dust to spread)

I believe the theory I read was mainly speculative - it looked at the time of evacuation and the timing of reports from firefighters that it was going to collapse

to clarify, I wasn't endorsing it as there's a distinct lack of evidence, but were one to search for a plausible narrative asd to what happened, this possiblity should be entertained

peace

[DeFecToR]

Certainly a possibility worth entertaining. I would wonder though what then was the reason for the demo of W7. If it was simply to destroy evidence relating to other investigations (like those being held by the FBI) then why not simply move it all in to the TT and save the need for W7's demolition? Also, if indeed the TT were demo'd using computer controlled explosive charges, then those computers had to have been situated somewhere. I feel certain that Giulianni's Office of Emergency Manegement bunker housed this gear - (open to suggestions; those military helicopters present during both collapses seemed suspicious. Could the equipment need to set off the charges in the TT be housed in a helicopter in flight? Anyone know please post.) - and if indeed W7 was the control centre used for the demo then there would have to have been a delay between the demo of the TT and the demo of W7. Any personel within W7 would most likely have waited at least a short time until they felt safe enough to exit the building (though all that smoke would have made for excellent cover).
The timing of W7's collapse is a little strange though. Why leave it so long in to the evening to blow it up? Maybe they expected the fires they set within it to have reached a huge inferno by that time providing more of an excuse for its collapse. And when that didn't happen, they went ahead with the demo anyway.

[Skeptic]

Hmmm yes.

WTC7 was evacuated during/ after the collapse of the south tower right?

Giuliani etc. then moved to a makeshift command post at 75 Barkley St which could be where they executed the demolition of the north tower.

I know that thermite/mate can be set off by radio control but I don't know how portable the equipment is.

FEMA already has a workbase set up for their forthcoming drills (scheduled for later in the week) so that could be another potential command centre.

[Skeptic]

here's a Guiliani Commision hearing quote re: FEMA:

"... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed."

[andrewwatson]

Off-Topic from WTC7....

You know how one of the arguments used against 9/11 complicity in general and Controlled Demolition in particular is that it would have involved a huge number of people who would all have to be sworn to secrecy. and that the placing of hundreds of devices in the towers would have taken weeks of preparation and been difficult to hide?

Well, how about the idea that all they needed was to take out the central core with a couple of suitcase bombs in the basement? If they were powerful enough - which they clearly were - the shockwave would have surged up the elavator shafts and the building would implode and explode at the same time. It is clear that the central core offered no resistance to the collapsing floors and outer casing. This would explain why.

Despite the visual evidence of cutter charges and thermate, was anything more than a mini-nuke in the basement actually necessary?

[quicknthedead]

This is the heart to understanding the deception of the US government's official explanation of 9/11.

What really happened?

Premise:
9/11 was a US Government inside job. It had to be, and this is why:

Predicates:
i) WTC7 is an OBVIOUS controlled demolition [CD] to anyone who views its collapse.

ii) CD's take at least a minimum 2 weeks to prepare.

iii) WTC7 had high-level security, it being practically a government facility.

iv) No reports were ever made of any witnessing of any preparations for a CD.


Conclusion:
Therefore, security on the building must have been changed to allow for this preparation, and this could only have occurred with government complicity.

WTC7 MUST BE THE FOCUS / BEDROCK OF THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT!

[Skeptic]

[quicknthedead]

[DeFecToR]