Reply To: New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001

Home Forums Discussion Forum New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001 Reply To: New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001


And J, I don’t lie.

You appeared to have ignored the report completely when constructing your alternative theories or responding to other comments. If you hadn’t read the report but judged it to be wrong anyway, I’d call that lying.

If I get facts wrong I acknowledge and correct. I wish the same could be said of others.

Feel free to correct me if you have anything on your mind. I recall you accused me of being anti-Semitic not that long ago, I think because I refused to go along with your fit of hysteria over the propaganda campaign against Corbyn, but I’m sure you have something very specific in mind. I’d be obliged if you could clear the air.

J, I have read the report (have you?).

Yes Clark. I read both the draft and the final report on the day each was released. I’ve been looking at all the available evidence more or less since 9/11 happened. I’ve committed to what can be proven through evidence though I’m fairly open minded about other evidence which can’t easily prove anything, even though I don’t insist upon inclusion in my canon of evidence. What remains is complicated and hard to accept, but provable.

The batshit crazy theories have always had short shrift with me and have never been part of the puzzle but continue to be what is most often cited by alleged critics, suggesting that many so called critics don’t actually seem to know what they’re arguing against. I know we all seem credulous at best or malicious at worst, you’ve said as much in general terms, so can I ask you, do you have a theory which explains why the Bobby McIlvaine, the first victim of 9/11 was already dead before flight eleven hit WTC 1 at 8:46:26 a.m? He died outside WTC 1 as he approached the lobby when the front of the building exploded outward killing him instantly.

Bobby McIlvaine Act News Conference – September 11, 2017AE911Truth (Youtube)


First Responders Urge 9/11 Investigation — Sept. 11, 2019 Press ConferenceAE911Truth (Youtube)

Confirmatory video that this explosion occurred can be seen in the Naudet brothers film where extensive destruction of the lobby of building 1 is clearly visible.

Jules Naudet Full Footage From 9/11: WTC 1 Lobbyowensanto4004K (Youtube)

Confirmatory evidence of explosions before the impact of planes is also available in the testimony of numerous survivors, particularly from the sub basement levels of WTC 1:

William Rodriguez, B level 1

Rosie O’Donnell and 9/11 Hero William RodriguezOneoftheImmortals (Youtube)


Marlene Cruz, elevator between sub basement levels

Carpenter Marlene Cruz Survives Explosions in WTC BasementFerk Akte (Youtube)

I think it quite likely that WTC7 was subjected to emergency demolition, rigged on the afternoon of 9/11.

Exactly the kind of baseless theorising you claim to abhor, but I’ll play. As far as I’m aware you haven’t accepted the idea of demolition until now so that’s a step forward.

I’m curious, what evidence have you seen to suggest there was an ’emergency demolition’ and do you have any precedent for such a thing? Is it possible to carry out what could fairly be characterised as a flawless demolition, exactly as observed and do it within hours? Was there a demolition team on hand? In a burning building? Surrounded by mountains of rubble? With the lobby of WTC 7 filled with dead and dying according to witnesses? And with stairwells blown away by explosions according to other witnesses? Presumably you’re aware such work usually requires months, sometimes many months of preparation?

Are you aware of any ’emergency demolition’ on this scale having taken place anywhere ever? It must be:

1. of comparable size
2. planned and implemented with comparable speed
3. of comparable complexity

If there were an ’emergency demolition’ why would NIST falsify their own report in order to claim that fire collapsed the building? If it were all as innocent as your conjecture, what would they have to gain by tarnishing their reputation as badly as they have?

Why would a former NIST employee feel compelled to investigate his own organisations WTC7 report if everything were as innocent as you claim?

The only person in any position of authority in relation to 9/11 to appear to suggest such a thing was owner of WTC 1,2 and 4,5, Larry Silverstein, his notorious ‘so we decided to pull it’ remark, which he later denied referred to demolition. Presumably you’re referring to this?

Can you explain why your theory of an ad hoc demolition makes more sense rather than less?

The report has much interesting information eg. the court cases and the wildly uneven distribution of loads on the columns (crap design)

You’re an architect? My layman’s understanding is that it was the best engineering solution for the required building in the space available. I haven’t heard it characterised as ‘crap design’ by anyone before. It did its job exactly as designed, and in fact it was over designed as the report also points out. In any case, the profile of the building further proves that near symmetrical collapse, as observed in all of the films would be impossible even if fire could bring down a steel frame building. All those imbalances and stresses inherent in the design would have twisted the building and toppled it to one side, quite the opposite of what we observe.

but also some serious problems, eg. UAF worked from the plans, and without the building debris you can’t prove that the building conformed to the plans; WTC7 might even have been missing some critical components.

UAF had access to the working drawings (those actually used during construction*) and I believe were able to consult with some of the actual team who built WTC7, ae9/11 truth and the report itself talk about these aspects. UAF had a far clearer understanding of the actual building than NIST, that much is clear. The same NIST who covered up and lied about any ad hoc demolition and indeed falsified some of their data as well as changing many material aspects of the building in order to bolster their case.

That said, as you probably know, all procedure and protocol for crime scenes, air crashes and terrorist attacks were scrupulously ignored after 9/11, and remember, this was all three. Evidence, including steel from all three buildings (the Pentagon too as far as I know) including the aircraft, were immediately removed from each scene and most of it destroyed before any investigation took place. Do you have a theory about why?

Further reading:

*And which contain more detail of additional fireproofing and beam stiffeners not present in the NIST report which I believe was only based on the plan drawings and not representative of the actual building. Puzzling that you should exactly reverse the order of evidence if you’ve actually read the report and had time to digest it.