Why the WTC7 Controlled Demolition Thesis Is Absurd

Over recent days and weeks on Twitter, I’ve witnessed the re-emergence of the theory that Building 7 at the World Trade Center on 9-11 was brought down by controlled explosives. Geopolitical analyst, Patrick Henningsen and artist, Daniel Fooks are among those commentators who appear to support this theory. I will challenge the theory by unpacking each claim in turn.

The first theory relates to the announcement in the media of the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened as evidence of establishment collusion. Those who challenge the official narrative cite a BBC report in support of their thesis. However, the BBC and others were monitoring the news from different outlets and that’s where they learned of WTC 7.

According to the fire department, by 2 p.m there was a strong possibility the building would soon collapse, so its imminent demise was picked up by reporters. The fire department relayed information to reporters that the building was going to collapse. By the time it reached outlets like the BBC and CNN it may have simply been mis-communicated from “about to collapse” to “has collapsed”.

The female BBC reporter even starts out by saying “details are very, very sketchy.” This is a clear case of journalistic incompetence which wouldn’t be the first time for a BBC reporter.

The second claim that WTC 7 collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition is that it was said to have been in freefall and collapsed into its own footprint. However, the evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report.

Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This interesting set of videos, which are shot at different angles, clearly show that WTC7 does not fall straight down. The assertion by critics that the building was in freefall for 2.25 seconds state this as if it is somehow significant to their argument even though this fact was conceded by the official 2008 inquiry.

The reality is, WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint but left substantial debris scattered across the entire WTC complex site. The damage to WTC 7 was actually caused by debris from WTC 1, 370 feet away. A controlled demolition would presumably try to avoid such behaviour. If one accepts that WTC 7 was burning for many hours, it’s illogical to also propose the controlled demolition thesis because the one precludes the other.

The third claim relates to the apparent sound of explosions. But such claims are pure supposition. Testimonies from firefighters inside and outside of the building are consistent, and demolitions experts who saw WTC 7 collapse neither saw nor heard anything indicating an explosive demolition. Nothing can be seen or heard in videos that resembles explosive charges going off before the collapse.

Seismic data from multiple sources indicates that, as with the Twin Towers, the collapse of WTC 7 began slowly, completely unlike an explosive demolition but consistent with internal failures leading to global collapse. Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale “spike” or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument.

Crucially,  explosive demolitions would not be very controlled, or likely to work at all, if they involved slamming tons of skyscraper debris through a building and then setting it on fire for seven hours. Precision explosives, timers, and wiring don’t like that sort of treatment (Source: Brent Blanchard of Protec http://tinyurl.com/z6zyc).

Fourth, many of those who propose the controlled demolition thesis cite controlled demolition expert, Danny Jowenko, in support of their case. Jowenko was on record as asserting, definitively, that what he saw, at that moment for the first time, was a controlled demolition. However, this is the view of one man who was asked to comment in an instance.

The November 2008 NIST report into the collapse of WTC 7 proffers a more realistic explanation, namely, that fire was the main reason for the collapse, along with lack of water to fight the fire and falling debris which ruptured the oil pipes feeding its emergency generators. The reduction in pressure triggered the automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel onto fires which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on the lower floors.

At 5.20 p.m. a critical column buckled, leading to the collapse of floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures within the building, eventually leading to global collapse. The lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires, which were fueled by office contents and burned for seven hours, along with the lack of water were the key reasons for the collapse. Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts who came to the same conclusions.

Although it wasn’t completely obvious to the untrained eye at the time, WTC 7 had been seriously compromised by a 20-story gash in one corner facing Ground Zero, and by the time the evacuation order of the building was given it was visibly sagging.

Fifth, critics of the official theory claim that “pull” is standard jargon within the demolition industry to fire off demolition charges within buildings. But demolition experts have denied this; the usual term would be “shoot it” or “blow it.” “Pulling” refers to a procedure of attaching hauser cables to a building and using heavy vehicles to pull it over, something that would have been fairly easy for observers to detect.

Sixth, WTC 7 was not the first ever steel frame structure to collapse from fire, as many critics of the official theory claim.

Seven, some critics have remarked on the fact that some witnesses saw “flashes” inferring that it was indicative of an explosion. However, these witnesses are mistaken. This is one of the flashes in slow motion. It isn’t an explosion. What you see are window glass popping out as the floors collapse and compress the air inside. The sun is momentarily reflected in each pane of glass as it falls.

Despite all of this evidence, we are somehow expected to believe that either:

a) “Explosives” were planted when the buildings were erected. That would require the longest conspiracy planning in history.


b) They were planted later. In which case, who planted them? How did they do that in a building occupied by 50,000 people on a daily basis? Perhaps they did it on weekends when the building only had about 5,000 visitors /day?

Finally, many critics cite the events surrounding Larry Silverstein as their ‘smoking gun’. However, the theory is roundly debunked here.

To clarify the main points: Silverstein (the new leaseholder for the WTC) had been going to the Twin Towers “Windows on the World” restaurant (there were no survivors on this level) to dine and meet with his new tenants; he had been doing this straight since July 26, 2001. But on 9/11 he didn’t go because he claimed his wife made a dermatologist appointment for him.

Many critics of the official narrative point out that in the interview which Silverstein is asked where he was on 9/11 he appears to be showing signs of lying. It is, however, very likely he was indeed simply going to a dermatologist appointment.

Out of the thousands of people who worked at the site during the day, many dozens at any one time would have been on holiday, off sick or simply slacking on September 11th (a good half dozen well-known celebrities were involved in and avoided a potential end in the attacks).

That one of these happened to be the owner isn’t remarkable. There are plenty of important traders who did die in the attack — by the logic that one escaped suggests a conspiracy, the fact that many died should discredit it, right?

Also going against the idea of advanced-knowledge is that Neil D. Levin, the head of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (which presumably would be “in” on any conspiracy), was killed on 9/11- while dining in the Widows of the World, no less. If there was advance knowledge, why was Silverstein informed while Levin wasn’t?

It has been repeatedly reported that Silverstein had insured the Twin Towers a year earlier, and it is more than “coincidental” that this insurance covered terrorist attacks. Further, Silverstein had numerous legal disputes that aimed to increase the payout by arguing that there were two separate attacks. To a first approximation, this was successful and Silverstein managed to claim approximately $4.6 billion.

But what critics don’t mention about this is that the total cost of the towers was significantly in excess of this — the insurance value was way below what it should have been. Most of the legal wrangling after the fact was also due to the insurance contracts being incomplete. The total cost of the attack would be in the region of $7 billion or more, leaving a considerable loss once the relatively measly insurance payout was claimed.

With too low an insurance value and less-than-solid contracts, literally none of the insurance-based activities seem to point to the actions of people who knew exactly what was going to happen in advance. If it was an insurance scam, it was the worst ever.

The World Trade Center had already been bombed once before in 1993, and that several major terror plots against U.S. landmarks had been uncovered since then. In light of this, an anti-terrorism insurance policy would appear to be an entirely logical purchase.

One thought on “Why the WTC7 Controlled Demolition Thesis Is Absurd

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s