WTC7 Explained? I Don't Think So.
Somebody named Mark Roberts wrote an extremely long piece on the collapse of WTC7. The text is here, and on that same page you can download a PDF or a WORD version of the piece. It is over 100 pages, but much of it is pictures. I actually read through the whole thing.
First of all, Roberts did a reasonably thorough job trying to support the "official story". He obviously spent a lot of time on the piece.
Second, Roberts seems very (perhaps even inordinately) determined to prove nothing suspicious happened with WTC7, i.e. that there was no controlled demolition. Oddly, for all effort he put into the piece, one thing Roberts didn't seem to cover was the issue that WTC7 was built over an electrical substation and had an awkwardly built lower section with supposedly some columns having too much stress on them. It is odd he doesn't really talk about it, because it tends support the official story.
Roberts' big beef seems to be that "Conspiracy Theorists" are slandering NYC firemen. That may be the case, and I am not going to try to defend Alex Jones or Les Jamieson. I don't trust those people myself.
Overall, I imagine this article will be convincing to most people who know little about WTC7 and have few if any doubts about the official 9/11 story. And probably the piece won't sway people who tend to doubt the official 9/11 story.
MY major complaint is that there is a very disturbing credulity on the part of Roberts and his ilk (the Screw Loose Change gang) about WTC7 and the official 9/11 story in general.***
A HUGE 47 story office building sinks down in a symmetrical fashion, essentially at free-fall speed, and collapses into a very neat little pile-- and it's like: hey no problem! It's normal! People who question it are kooks!
They have the same view about everything relating to 9/11: the incredible collapses of WTC1 and WTC2, the way UA175 melted into the South Tower, the unlikely Pentagon attack, the bizarre flight 93 crash site. It's all "NO PROBLEM!" This is NORMAL physics! The amazingly ineffective air defense system on 9/11? The lack of apparent knowledge about the hijackers PRIOR to the attacks? Incompetent government! No problem! People who question it are kooks!
Obviously, I DON'T THINK SO.
Here is what I say about WTC7:
-- I always thought Silverstein's "pull it" comment was bizarre and confusing and not really a smoking gun (though possibly disinfo)
-- yes, WTC7 WAS damaged from the fall of WTC1 and was on fire
-- the extent of the damage is unclear and photos showing the damage more clearly have been with-held from the public for some reason
-- there is no evidence for massive raging fires at WTC7, there were hardly any fires on the north face of the building
-- the big question is: how can asymmetrical fires and asymmetrical structural damage cause a perfectly symmetrical free-fall collapse?
--even NIST says they don't know exactly why WTC7 fell
-- Roberts says that WTC7 fell at 13 seconds not 7 seconds. But this timing is only because the penthouse structure of WTC7 took several seconds to collapse. In fact, the main structure of WTC7 fell at essentially free fall speed: 7 seconds
-- the fall of WTC7 was much too smooth and controlled to be from a building completely breaking apart and collapsing from gravity
-- the fireproofing of WTC7 was not damaged so why should the fires have caused the collapse?
-- whatever happened at WTC7 probably wasn't purely conventional demolition, and some sort of beam weapon may have been used like at WTC1 and WTC2
-- firemen saying that WTC7 was going to come down may have been saying that after seeing what happened to WTC1 and WTC2. It doesn't imply specific knowledge of demolition. On the other hand, the firemen's statements do not RULE OUT demolition. The statements are ambiguous, just like Silverstein's comments.
-- it seems quite possible that WTC7 was somewhat unstable and that firemen were indeed worried that it would collapse, and a similar device that was used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2 was used to bring down WTC7.
-- WTC7 had several suspicious tenants such as the CIA and Secret Service, not to mention various financial services companies, that may have wanted to destroy evidence
-- If WTC7 was in fact highly valuable, why wasn't more effort made to save it?
-- questioning the WTC7 collapse is not kooky, nor is questioning anything else about 9/11, especially since the bulk of the evidence implies 9/11 was an inside job and a huge fraud on the American people
***The Screw Loose Change gang are probably a mixture of extremely credulous "useful idiots" and professional "debunkers"/"disinfo agents".
First of all, Roberts did a reasonably thorough job trying to support the "official story". He obviously spent a lot of time on the piece.
Second, Roberts seems very (perhaps even inordinately) determined to prove nothing suspicious happened with WTC7, i.e. that there was no controlled demolition. Oddly, for all effort he put into the piece, one thing Roberts didn't seem to cover was the issue that WTC7 was built over an electrical substation and had an awkwardly built lower section with supposedly some columns having too much stress on them. It is odd he doesn't really talk about it, because it tends support the official story.
Roberts' big beef seems to be that "Conspiracy Theorists" are slandering NYC firemen. That may be the case, and I am not going to try to defend Alex Jones or Les Jamieson. I don't trust those people myself.
Overall, I imagine this article will be convincing to most people who know little about WTC7 and have few if any doubts about the official 9/11 story. And probably the piece won't sway people who tend to doubt the official 9/11 story.
MY major complaint is that there is a very disturbing credulity on the part of Roberts and his ilk (the Screw Loose Change gang) about WTC7 and the official 9/11 story in general.***
A HUGE 47 story office building sinks down in a symmetrical fashion, essentially at free-fall speed, and collapses into a very neat little pile-- and it's like: hey no problem! It's normal! People who question it are kooks!
They have the same view about everything relating to 9/11: the incredible collapses of WTC1 and WTC2, the way UA175 melted into the South Tower, the unlikely Pentagon attack, the bizarre flight 93 crash site. It's all "NO PROBLEM!" This is NORMAL physics! The amazingly ineffective air defense system on 9/11? The lack of apparent knowledge about the hijackers PRIOR to the attacks? Incompetent government! No problem! People who question it are kooks!
Obviously, I DON'T THINK SO.
Here is what I say about WTC7:
-- I always thought Silverstein's "pull it" comment was bizarre and confusing and not really a smoking gun (though possibly disinfo)
-- yes, WTC7 WAS damaged from the fall of WTC1 and was on fire
-- the extent of the damage is unclear and photos showing the damage more clearly have been with-held from the public for some reason
-- there is no evidence for massive raging fires at WTC7, there were hardly any fires on the north face of the building
-- the big question is: how can asymmetrical fires and asymmetrical structural damage cause a perfectly symmetrical free-fall collapse?
--even NIST says they don't know exactly why WTC7 fell
-- Roberts says that WTC7 fell at 13 seconds not 7 seconds. But this timing is only because the penthouse structure of WTC7 took several seconds to collapse. In fact, the main structure of WTC7 fell at essentially free fall speed: 7 seconds
-- the fall of WTC7 was much too smooth and controlled to be from a building completely breaking apart and collapsing from gravity
-- the fireproofing of WTC7 was not damaged so why should the fires have caused the collapse?
-- whatever happened at WTC7 probably wasn't purely conventional demolition, and some sort of beam weapon may have been used like at WTC1 and WTC2
-- firemen saying that WTC7 was going to come down may have been saying that after seeing what happened to WTC1 and WTC2. It doesn't imply specific knowledge of demolition. On the other hand, the firemen's statements do not RULE OUT demolition. The statements are ambiguous, just like Silverstein's comments.
-- it seems quite possible that WTC7 was somewhat unstable and that firemen were indeed worried that it would collapse, and a similar device that was used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2 was used to bring down WTC7.
-- WTC7 had several suspicious tenants such as the CIA and Secret Service, not to mention various financial services companies, that may have wanted to destroy evidence
-- If WTC7 was in fact highly valuable, why wasn't more effort made to save it?
-- questioning the WTC7 collapse is not kooky, nor is questioning anything else about 9/11, especially since the bulk of the evidence implies 9/11 was an inside job and a huge fraud on the American people
***The Screw Loose Change gang are probably a mixture of extremely credulous "useful idiots" and professional "debunkers"/"disinfo agents".
posted by spooked at 6:52 AM
7 Comments:
Spooked,
I, author of the blog: Bill Giltner's News Review, posted Mark Roberts crapola to expose what a fake it is. It frequently resorts to ad hominem attacks.
It is with complete honest intellectual disagreement and great disappointment that I read your quote:
"I imagine this article will be convincing to most people who are unsure about WTC7 and who take the time to go through the article."
I simply won't go along with that contention, unless you are restricting your "most people" pool (possibly large) to those who haven't taken the time to read a book like David Ray Griffin's New Pearl Harbor or other general treatments of 9/11.
As someone who has long been convinced of the overwhelming nature of the evidence that leads to questions (and some conclusions) about the Government's explanation of 9/11, perhaps I'm unable to place myself in the average reader's shoes.
I didn't mean that the article would convince anyone who isn't suspicious about WTC7, such as most 9/11 skeptics. Just that if someone had heard there was something funny about WTC7 and then read this article, they might go along with the idea that it was a natural collapse.
i took spooked's comment to mean that roberts' article only serves to reinforce belief in the official fairytale - is that what you meant spooked?
---
one fool that i used to argue 9/11 with would always bring up the fact that wtc7 was built on top of a power station. as if that's why it symetrically collapsed neatly into its own footprint in a classic controlled demolition manner in only 7 seconds! oh at first it was "built over an existing power station" and that soon evolved into "built on a scaffold" which quickly became "built on a ladder"
built on a ladder?!! right. when was wtc7 built? '85? '87? something like that, ya?
as if they didn't know how to properly build a high-rise in the '80s! oh well.
you know what? bush could come right out and say "oh we blew it up" and it wouldn't even matter. those crooks can do no wrong in some people's eyes.
I agree the Silverstein quote is not a smoking gun. I think the term "pull it" sounds like pulling the building, not the firefighter operation ("it), as said by Mr. Roberts. "Pull them out" sounds more plausible for that. But who cares? The physical evidence is more important.
I also wonder why Loose Change talks about gold as the reason for 9/11. I don't trust those guys -- their video seems to have high production values for three college kids. But I could be wrong, and they make some good points.
I think your blog is excellent, and that you are a careful thinker. "Spooked" is a great name -- that's how I feel.
I cannot share Mr. Roberts' trust of NIST, because they have yet to offer a rational explanation for the sudden collapse of WTC 1 and 2.
There is no way those towers were turned to very fine dust in the "global collapse." That is why NIST stopped at "initiation of global collapse." They could not come up with a model that could possibly explain that.
Jones' thermite theory seems to have little scientific basis, other than as one possible mechanism by which the buildings came down. I wish Jones would stick to saying that the buildings could not have collapsed as NISt and FEMA said. This is common sense but it was nice to have a physics professor state the obvious. I am concerned that he is trying to sabotage the truth. If he is discredited, for example if his supposed experiments turn out to have been wrong or even fabricated, the obvious point that there was some added energy source will be discredited. Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood are questioning his research, and he is not responding for the most part.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=jonesville
Hearing what Mr. Roberts is saying, it seems better to stay away from Silverstein and the insurance, as it is not essential. However, I wonder how that played out. The insurance company must have taken the government's word on what happened. I wonder what deals were made over that.
One more thing. Mr. Roberts cites to the Scholars for 911 Truth secretary leaving and criticizing Jones and Fetzer. Wow, things are worse than I thought. Looks like the failings of ST911 will be used to discredit the physical proof. That seems to be secretary's concern if you read the full email. Hannity will have a field day.
Hmm, so am I "useful idiot" or a "professional disinfo agent"? I must be the former, since I haven't been getting my checks.
Post a Comment
<< Home