An in-depth look at conspiracist claims about WTC 7

 
There are glaring flaws with the claims that WTC 7 
was brought down by explosives.
 
Most of these points will be examined in more detail below.


The building suffered severe structural damage from the debris from the north tower collapse. Firefighters described a gaping hole in the south face. We will see glimpses of south face damage through the smoke in photos below and will see clear images of the massive damage to the southwest corner.

No one reports having seen work that might involve the planting of demolitions charges. I’m not aware of anyone who has provided a rational explanation of how this work might have been done and remained unobserved, before, during, and after the building’s collapse.  An employee of Solomon Smith Barney who worked in WTC 7 says,

I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.

In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.

I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything significant.

Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers.  http://tinyurl.com/n5xap

Some CTs contend that WTC 7 was demolished to conceal sensitive information that was stored there by some of its tenants. This is one of the silliest of all 9/11 CT claims. Sure: whenever I have information on my hard drives or documents that I don’t want anyone to get their hands on, I always wire my building with explosives, set it on fire, and demolish it. 

In addition, keep in mind that information was recovered from many computer hard drives found in the WTC rubble. http://tinyurl.com/nmgmc  Investigators were keen to have this information, to trace any transactions that may have indicated foreknowledge of the attacks. As the 9/11 Commission report details, these transactions turned out to not have suspicious origins. http://tinyurl.com/k659n pg. 145-152 

Fires raged uncontrolled on many floors for hours. Lack of hydrant pressure due to broken water mains left firemen nearly helpless to extinguish the blazes.

The building was visibly bulging and was making groaning noises: when a steel-framed building does that it’s in very serious trouble.

Demolitions experts who saw WTC 7 collapse from nearby neither saw nor heard anything indicat-ing an explosive demolition.

Nothing can be seen or heard in videos that resembles explosive charges going off before the collapse.

Seismic data from multiple sources indicates that, as with the Twin Towers, the collapse of WTC 7 began slowly, completely unlike an explosive demolition but consistent with internal failures leading to global collapse.

Seismograph of WTC 7 collapse from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

 

 

"Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale “spike” or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument."  –Brent Blanchard of Protec http://tinyurl.com/z6zyc

Explosive demolitions would not be very controlled, or likely to work at all, if they involved slamming tons of skyscraper debris haphazardly through a building and then setting that building on fire for seven hours. Precision explosives, timers, and wiring don’t like that sort of treatment. 

The fires in WTC 7 developed slowly. Had water pressure and manpower been available, those fires probably could have been extinguished. CTs: is it your contention that the "conspirators" would have blown up WTC 7 at 5:20 anyway, rather than risk discovery of their demolitions charges? If so, wouldn't such a demolition be far more suspicious than the collapse of a building that was fully involved with fire?

Conspiracist claims about WTC 7 are not supported by evidence or by logic.