Was 9/11 WTC Building 7 a Controlled Demolition? | GravitySailor

Print Friendly

Was 9/11 WTC Bldg 7 a Controlled Demolition?

WTC Building 7 Collapses in 6 Seconds Beginning With Free Fall
As time passes 9/11 is becoming a foggy memory for many, but to an increasing number of professional architects, engineers, physicists and other scientists—9/11 remains a troubling cover-up of the controlled demolition of WTC Building 7.  I am typically laughed off if I even bring this topic up, but I challenge everyone to watch the Architects & Engineers 9/11 Truth video, and then draw your own conclusion.

Some of the most troubling facts:

  • Building 7 suffered only minor office fires, no plane or debris strike, but yet it failed completely in 6 seconds.
  • The building fell at the rate of gravity for the 1st 100 feet, this requires zero resistance, which requires explosives.
  • The heat generated from an office fire is not nearly sufficient to melt structural steel.
  • All evidence from Building 7 was immediately removed from the scene, 400 trucks per day, and all scrap steel shipped to China for immediate recycling.
  • Nano-thermite was recovered in dust, NIST refuses to confirm tests.
  • The NIST (The National Institute of Standards and Technology) did not follow standard procedure for testing, and they did NOT test for explosive nor thermite.
  • Building 7 fell evenly and consistently with controlled demolitions according to demolition experts.  The uniformity of the fall requires that all lower supports fail at exactly the same time.
  • Demolition expert Danny Jowenko, one of world’s leading building demolition experts,was killed in a one-car accident last week when his car slammed into a tree. Jowenko received international attention as the expert who unequivocally described the collapse of Building 7 at the World Trade Center on 911 as a “demolition.”

Please watch the videos and share your thoughts. (“Playlist” to see all)



Proof of Thermite Use?

Sincerely,  Admiral Rudolph Flügelhorn

Admiral Rudolph Flügelhorn



Please scroll ⇓ down ⇓ to share your thoughts in the comments below!

Related Articles From Across The Web:

Wow, what a thorough response, thank you for your diligence. I am pleased that you invested the time to read an article and address this issue. One article and you are convinced? You may have saved a few of us from being mislead. However, your rebuttal leaves quite a few large wholes for me and does little to alleviate my concerns. After all, there are literally hundreds of articles and papers on this issue, and many align with the 9/11 Truth opinion.


MIT No sufficient Explanation


MOLTEN STEEL - NIST Denies witness, there were tons and pics



Also, I never mentioned anything about plane passengers surviving or no plane hitting the Pentagon. I have not explored those issues.


First, a $16M study to complete a thorough investigation of an event the size of 9/11 is a disgracefully inadequate amount. I have seen a "team of consultants and independent experts" burn half of that before getting to the site, and without producing a single deliverable. That raises a serious red flag for me. Furthermore, "NIST's investigation would not even start until virtually all of the steel had been removed from Ground Zero and recycled. On March 5, 2002, W. Gene Corley, leader of FEMA's Building Performance Study, testified to the House Science Committee about the need to further investigate the performance of buildings that were damaged or collapsed on 9/11/2001.

It is apparent from reading NIST's website that its investigation was conducted strictly within the confines of the official story -- that the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 resulted from the jetliner impacts. A presentation about NIST's response to the disaster claims there is a "critical and urgent national need" to "establish the probable technical causes of the collapses and derive lessons to be learned", but, prior to the publication of their Final Report on Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers in late 2005, none of the materials on the NIST site even mentioned the possibility that the collapses were caused by controlled demolition. Moreover, building 7 wasn't even addressed until 2008, it was not even included in the 2005 initial report.


Second, while I laughed at the "arguing over the marching speed of hobbits," line, ad hominem attacks carry no weight and speak for themselves. Only the very weak-minded could be persuaded but a quick bust.

Third, nano-thermite is not "an obscure scientific explanation," it has been around since the early 1990s and has been researched at Los Almost National Labs for military use. Utilizing a less than 100nm pieces of components makes the chemical reaction burn hotter and ignite much easier. And it can be developed into an explosive composition. If our government/military has nano-thermite, it is plausible that others do as well--and it is also plausible they stole out secrets--after all, the Manhattan project itself was compromised (for which Oppenheimer paid a very heavy price.)

Fourth, NIST has never addressed the cause of the 100 feet of free-fall on bldg 7, which has extensive visual evidence and is incontrovertible. For free-fall to occur, there must be zero resistance below the falling object. For there to be zero resistance for bldg 7, that means the lower flowers suddenly simply were not there. The only explanations for this is that an entire lower floor was suffered a coincidental structural failure of 200 heavy I-Beams, the Klingons fired a weapon and dematerialized the foundation structure, or some form of explosive synchronously blew out the bldg underpinnings. I'll take option 3, and apparently Larry Silverstein admitted as much!

1) Larry Silverstein clearly said bldg 7 was "pulled."


Fifth, NIST have never tested no addressed the red dust particles / residue found in all WTC dust from all over downtown.

Take a look at these evasive responses from NIST report itself.

1) They did not test for thermite

2) They ignored multiple witnesses that say molten steel, which would only exist in controlled demolition.

22. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to previous questions demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

As for thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited), it burns slowly relative to explosive materials and would require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

23. Why didn’t the NIST investigation consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

Finally, the numerous eyewitness firefighters and police officers that all heard multiple rapid-fire explosions. Not addressed by NIST.

I wish I could be as confident as the magazine article and the NIST report, but there a way too many legitimate scientist that simply do not accept the NIST report. The TRUTH will eventually come out, I hope I am alive too hear it.

GravitySailor's Flickr Photos

GravitySailor on Google+

GravitySailor on Pinterest

Follow Me on Pinterest

Reading Recommendations

© 2015 All Rights Reserved