I have a dilemma: Do I believe a bunch of supposedly distinguished architectural engineers or do I believe the government and their agencies, NIST and FEMA? I'm talking about the collapse of World Trade Center building #7 (WTC7) that occurred at 5:20 PM on 9/11. The architectural engineers say it was a controlled demolition meaning that the building was brought down on purpose using explosives and the cutting of the support columns. If it was a controlled demolition, that would mean placing all of the charges, etc. would have had to have been done well before and probably at least weeks before 9/11. NIST and FEMA and our government say that fires inside the building caused the collapse and therefore the collapse was not controlled.
The other part of the dilemma is do I simply believe one or the other, or do I actually have to use my own head.
This is what the architectural engineers say on their website, ae911truth.ORG :
Regarding the collapse of WTC7
1. Rapid onset of "collapse"
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)
3. Symmetrical "collapse" -- through the path of greatest resistance -- at nearly free-fall speed -- the columns gave no resistance
4. Squibs, or "mistimed" explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
5. "Collapses" into its own footprint -- with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
9. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
10. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
11. Fore-knowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise steel-framed buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed".
In addition, there were a couple of little to moderate (at best) fires. I say "little to moderate" fires at best because by historical standards, the fires weren't very big. There was some damage as well from debris falling from the Twin Towers. Both the damage and fires were not symmetrically located.
The building was only about 16 years old and and has been described as "overbuilt." I have seen videos showing how all of the tremendous amounts of steel were positioned and interlaced; and yes, it certainly appears that WTC7 was indeed "overbuilt."
So, these supposedly distinguished architectural engineers say that absolutely every single characteristic of the collapse -- or dare I say implosion -- was exactly like that of a controlled demolition. And that there was not a single characteristic of destruction by fire.
Those architectural engineers also say that a symmetrical collapse would require that ALL of the supporting beams would have to fail at exactly the same time, which, seems to make perfect sense. What bothers me just a bit about this whole thing is that the damage and fires were not symmetrically located in the building. And when I watch the implosion, it is about as perfectly symmetrical as anything I've ever seen. And it happened SO quickly. If I had dropped a bowling ball from the top of WTC7 just when the implosion began, it would have reached the ground at virtually the same time as the top of the building. Just what DID happen to all of the supporting steel In World Trade Center #7? Did all of the steel simply give up?
I look at all of the above, and it sure seems like its an airtight case to me. How could it NOT be a controlled demolition? But, I don't have all of the input required to make my own intelligent decision. I must factor in the other side. After all, I don't want to jump to conclusions.
So, from the other side, we have the findings from the governmental agencies NIST and FEMA as requested by our government. NIST (National Institue of Standards and Technology) did an initial study about five or six years ago and has been hard back at it again for the last number of years.
Their argument: Both NIST and FEMA say fires were the cause for the implosion but neither one knows just how fires could have possibly caused the collapse that looked -- and indeed was -- exactly like a PERFECTLY CONTROLLED IMPLOSION.
I now have both sides to the story. But my dilemma remains, do I believe this side or do I believe that side? Do I just pick one, or do I actually have to use my brain to try to determine which side's argument is more logical? I hate that. My mom always said I didn't have any common sense. If that is true, then because I think the architectural engineers' argument is a bit -- quite a bit actually -- more rational and logical, then maybe I should believe the other side and that it really was the mysteriously wonder-working fires. And who am I to not believe the Official story? Maybe a coin toss is in order. But first, maybe I should find out if WTC7 was hit by an airplane. But that takes time, let's just flip .......... oh no(!) it was tails, what does that mean?
Please help make "The Shell Game" a best seller. It may be the BEST chance we have to bring the necessary attention to what happened on 9/11.
www. theshellgame\. net/