How would conspirators know that WTC 7 was going to be hit by huge amounts of debris from WTC 1? After all, they couldn’t just blow up a building that was standing there for seven hours unharmed, right? Just look at how 130 Liberty Street (Banker’s Trust / Deutsche Bank) was hammered by debris from WTC 2 and received an 18-story gash, but only had small fires (Its damage was not as severe as that done to WTC 7, but it was severe enough that the building is being torn down).
Aha! CTs reply with the explanation that fires were set in building 7 as “cover” for the demolition operation. As mentioned above, this makes no sense whatsoever. If CTs want to claim that the WTC demolition looked just like a controlled demolition (CD), they cannot also claim that it did NOT look like a CD.
In addition, claiming that the fires were set to throw investigators off the track of the real cause of WTC 7’s collapse is to admit that fires can bring down steel buildings. They can, and do, all the time. I suggest that doubters look into the Kader Industrial Toy Factory fire of 1993, in which three large multistory (uninsulated) steel-framed buildings quickly collapsed, without being severely damaged beforehand. http://tinyurl.com/l8qz2
The “No modern steel skyscraper” argument
“But wait a minute!” cry the CTs. “Before 9/11, no modern steel-framed skyscraper had ever completely collapsed due to fire!”
To which I reply: every modern steel-framed skyscraper that was subjected to these conditions has completely collapsed:
• Severe structural damage.
• Damage to the thermal protection on its structural steel.
• Enormous uncontrolled fires on multiple floors.
According to NIST, those are the three interdependent reasons that the Twin Towers collapsed. If any one of the three conditions didn’t exist, NIST says that the towers probably wouldn’t have fallen. As mentioned earlier, NIST’s final report on WTC 7 is due out in 2007.