Architects and engineers challenge official story of World Trade Center Building 7 collapse
Saturday, August 20, 2011 by: J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) Most of us remember the horror of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and the mental images of the collapse of the twin World Trade Center towers is forever etched into our minds. But while the reason for their demise is well-known, well documented and well accepted, there remain serious doubts about exactly why another WTC structure, Building 7, imploded in the afternoon on that fateful day.
Scores of television and radio news outlets who had reporters on the scene, as well eyewitnesses and - perhaps most importantly - a number of architectural engineers all believe that WTC Building 7 buckled and fell not because of raging fires on the first floor that tore through office furniture and weakened the structure, as a government agency concluded, but because it had been rigged well in advance with explosives.
As incredible as it sounds, the evidence - again, much of it from first-hand eyewitnesses and structural engineering experts - strongly supports that conclusion.
According to a video report by AE911Truth, some 1,500 engineers and architects now say WTC 7 "could not have been brought down by office fires."
One of those expert critics is Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and founder of American Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who says fire has caused equal or worse damage to other, taller structures, without ever producing the same effect.
"Fires have never before caused the collapse of any skyscraper, even though there are numerous examples of much hotter, larger and longer lasting fires in these buildings," he said. "And in the case of Building 7, the fire that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) said started the collapse had actually burned out over an hour before.
"It could not have caused the collapse as [the government] said," he added, noting that the very "modern" Building 7 was not struck by an aircraft and collapsed "mostly into its own footprint... in just under seven seconds."
Michael Donly, a structural engineer, says since the building "came down on its own footprint," meaning that "all of the (support) columns needed to be severed at the same time in order for that structure to fall the way that we saw."
Adds Kathy McGrade, a metallurgical engineer, "The symmetry is the smoking gun."
Other experts interviewed for the video report said that when WTC 7 collapsed in the fluid manner in which it fell, it was obvious that it the top two-thirds of the building were not meeting any structural resistance from the ground level, meaning that all parts of the structure had to have collapsed in unison.
Other experts said their visual analysis of the collapse was "a classic implosion," as in, the building had been rigged to collapse in on itself.
"In an office fire, you cannot generate enough heat to melt steel," McGrade insisted. "And yet, we have evidence of molten iron" that was found in the debris of WTC 7.
"R.J. Lee Company, USGS (United States Geological Survey) and [work from other experts] all three separately found these microspheres" of molten iron and steel - indicative of a thermitic reaction that likely destroyed the steel beams, she said.
In addition to the physical evidence, NYC firefighters testified that they saw molten steel in the debris of WTC 7.
The bottom line is this: If the building was destroyed purposely - and the evidence is very strong that it was - the question now is, why? And if so, what was the point in covering it up?
America lost nearly 3,000 sons, daughters, mothers and fathers on that fateful day. How does a cover-up do them justice?
Saturday, August 20, 2011 by: J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) Most of us remember the horror of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and the mental images of the collapse of the twin World Trade Center towers is forever etched into our minds. But while the reason for their demise is well-known, well documented and well accepted, there remain serious doubts about exactly why another WTC structure, Building 7, imploded in the afternoon on that fateful day.
Scores of television and radio news outlets who had reporters on the scene, as well eyewitnesses and - perhaps most importantly - a number of architectural engineers all believe that WTC Building 7 buckled and fell not because of raging fires on the first floor that tore through office furniture and weakened the structure, as a government agency concluded, but because it had been rigged well in advance with explosives.
As incredible as it sounds, the evidence - again, much of it from first-hand eyewitnesses and structural engineering experts - strongly supports that conclusion.
According to a video report by AE911Truth, some 1,500 engineers and architects now say WTC 7 "could not have been brought down by office fires."
One of those expert critics is Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and founder of American Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who says fire has caused equal or worse damage to other, taller structures, without ever producing the same effect.
"Fires have never before caused the collapse of any skyscraper, even though there are numerous examples of much hotter, larger and longer lasting fires in these buildings," he said. "And in the case of Building 7, the fire that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) said started the collapse had actually burned out over an hour before.
"It could not have caused the collapse as [the government] said," he added, noting that the very "modern" Building 7 was not struck by an aircraft and collapsed "mostly into its own footprint... in just under seven seconds."
Michael Donly, a structural engineer, says since the building "came down on its own footprint," meaning that "all of the (support) columns needed to be severed at the same time in order for that structure to fall the way that we saw."
Adds Kathy McGrade, a metallurgical engineer, "The symmetry is the smoking gun."
Other experts interviewed for the video report said that when WTC 7 collapsed in the fluid manner in which it fell, it was obvious that it the top two-thirds of the building were not meeting any structural resistance from the ground level, meaning that all parts of the structure had to have collapsed in unison.
Other experts said their visual analysis of the collapse was "a classic implosion," as in, the building had been rigged to collapse in on itself.
"In an office fire, you cannot generate enough heat to melt steel," McGrade insisted. "And yet, we have evidence of molten iron" that was found in the debris of WTC 7.
"R.J. Lee Company, USGS (United States Geological Survey) and [work from other experts] all three separately found these microspheres" of molten iron and steel - indicative of a thermitic reaction that likely destroyed the steel beams, she said.
In addition to the physical evidence, NYC firefighters testified that they saw molten steel in the debris of WTC 7.
The bottom line is this: If the building was destroyed purposely - and the evidence is very strong that it was - the question now is, why? And if so, what was the point in covering it up?
America lost nearly 3,000 sons, daughters, mothers and fathers on that fateful day. How does a cover-up do them justice?
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe that dark object mentioned in the video's title above was Mohammed Atta's passport. 
