World Trade Center Bldg 7- Fire or Controlled Demolition?
What do 1,373 architectural and engineering professionals have in common with over 250 pilots and aviation professionals and over 220 top senior military officials. They all doubt the governments conspiracy theories on what took place on September 11, 2001. The government claims that three steel structures fell to the ground at free fall speed due to jet fuel which is hydrocarbon. The government claims that jet fuel is sufficient to melt steel skyscrapers and for those buildings to fall down on themselves within a rather short period of time at free fall acceleration. Only controlled demolition can take down a steel skyscraper at free fall speed and reach temperatures hot enough to melt the inner steel support beams that hold the structure together.
Never before September 11, 2001 and not since has steel skyscrapers collapsed due to fire. The reason for this has to with science and physics. WTC7 which stands for World Trade Center building 7 was not hit by a plane but collapsed on September 11, 2001 and fell on it??s own footprint at free fall speed. The rapid onset of the collapse and the symmetrical structural failure which was through the path of greatest resistance happened at free fall acceleration. Massive volumes of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds could be seen just like in controlled demolition. Samples taken from building 7 have the chemical signature of thermite which is a high tech incendiary and were found in solidified molten metal and dust samples. (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html)
WTC 7 did not show any characteristics that one would expect to see from destruction by fire. When fire takes down a building there is slow onset with large visible deformations and the collapse is asymmetrical which means it does not collapse all at once down on itself. The fire would make the building collapse following the laws of the path of least resistance which means the side with the most damage would most likely fall first by the fires. The fires would have to burn for a very long time in order for them to reach temperatures capable of softening steel. High rise buildings in the past that have had much larger and hotter fires have never collapsed such as One Meridian Plaza, a 38 ft tall skyscraper in Philadelphia that had a very large fire through eight floors. (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html)
Building 7 was 300 feet from the plaza and its construction did not begun until

1985. It was of an entirely different architectural style than the other six buildings.

(http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/background/emporis_wtc7.html) On the 23rd floor

of building 7 was the Emergency Command Center which had 15 million dollars' worth

of renovations. These included features such as bullet and bomb-resistant windows and
the ability to withstand winds of 200 mph. (Divided We Stand, Basic Books, 1990, page

151) Building 7 was a 100% steel frame building. Like most modern skyscrapers, it had a

series of columns ringing its perimeter, and a bundle of columns in its core structure. Its

perimeter columns numbered 58 and its core columns numbered 25. The description of
the building can be found in FEMA??s WTC Building Performance Study. It should be

emphasized that WTC 7 was neither hit by an aircraft nor by significant quantities of

debris from the collapse of the twin towers.

The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least

most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that

is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. With this in mind lets go over some of the facts. Defenders of the official governments story never mention that prior to or after September 11, 2001 that fire has never caused steel frame high rise buildings to collapse.
Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official

theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because ??the

number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to

remaining columns in this highly redundant structure?? (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-

11). Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to

the collapse, focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot