On 9/11 we watched in horror as the WTC towers completely collapsed into a pile of rubble. At the time allot of us thought the same thing this news anchor did when we saw it. It seemed deliberate. It was certainly weird. See the clip here..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yz6XIvBIhY
But in 2004 NIST released their report, on what caused this collapse. It's 10,000 pages long, so if you have nothing to do for the next 6 months you can read it here. http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
There was another skyscraper that completely collapsed on 9/11 as well, one that wasn't hit by a plane. Known as WTC 7 and is pointed to by the so called conspiracy theorists as smoking gun proof of controlled demolitions being used at the WTC. You can see it collapse here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
Over the years the controversy over what caused building 7 to collapse has raged on. Popular mechanics seems to have been outsourced by the government to give their "official" explanations for what happened on 9/11. But these guys are not experts. And to be fair they admit they don't claim to be experts, they claim they get their information from the so called experts. These popular mechanics explantions for what happened on 9/11 all started with an article they wrote, for the magazine which was turned into a book. The article is here..
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
What allot of people don't know is the the senior reporter for this article was Benjamin Chertoff, you can see his bio here when he appeared on the radio program "coast to coast" in order to reach this "conspiracy crowd".
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/934.html
There is controversy over wether he is related to head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. If he is, in a 3rd world country this would be considered government propaganda. I don't know if he is or not. In any case quoting from their article on the cause of collapse of WTC 7...."Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse." You can read it here.. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7
However this is no longer cited as a "working hypotheis". On Dec 18, 2007 the NIST investagtors held a meeting to discuss the progress and latest updates on their investigation. And the latest hypthesis is that the fuel lines and tanks were not responsible for the initiation of collapse but instead was caused by "normal building fires". According to NIST investigators a 47 story building completely collapsed into a pile of rubble at freefall speed due to normal building fires that lasted no more than 20 minutes at any particular spot. As hard to believe as this might be, you can hear it for yourself. Here is the complete meeting and at the 19:00 mark you can hear this updated hypothesis, and also at the 01:01:00 mark about the fires lasting no more than 20 minutes at any one spot.
http://origin.eastbaymedia.com/~nist/asx/nist-wtc-121807.asx
But also at this meeting was Richard Gage, a representative of an organization known as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. you can hear him speak at the 01:30:00 mark. He gives another explanation for the collapse. He claimes that "World Trade Center 7's catastrophic structural failure showed every characteristic of explosive, controlled demolition."
His comments were entered into the record...you can read them here.
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/24
So, I ask the reader. Which explanation makes more sense to you?
