This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7
Preface: This essay does not question whether Bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacked us on September 11, 2001, or whether Iran, Saudi Arabia or another nation-state had a hand in the attacks. It focuses solely on a peripheral issue regarding the third building which fell on that terrible day.
Former commander-in-chief President Bush said:
Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories.
Indeed, the 9/11 Commission was warned not to probe too deeply. For example, ACLU, FireDogLake's Marcy Wheeler and RawStory reported (quoting RawStory):
Senior
Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission
against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, according to a document recently obtained by the ACLU.
The current commander-in-chief, Barack Obama, has also warned against questioning 9/11:
As anyone in the military knows, you can't give your opinion unless you get first "permission to speak freely".
We're not in the military. However, I am not entirely sure that matters, given that speaking out against government policies may be considered a type of terrorism in America today.
Many hundreds
of high-level military officers, intelligence officers, congressmen,
legal scholars and experts have broken the commander-in-chief's orders
not to question the government's official narrative regarding 9/11. And
see this and this.
But neither Bush nor Obama has instructed us not to discuss World Trade Center Building 7. Indeed, they have never once mentioned the
fact that a third building collapsed on 9/11 (and the 9/11 Commission
never mentioned it either), even though that building was not hit by a
plane.
And no one was killed when Building 7 collapsed. As such,
discussions of why Building 7 fell does not question Al Qaeda's
responsibility for the 3,000 deaths of innocent Americans which occurred
on 9/11. It doesn't even touch on U.S. military affairs since 9/11,
since no wars or anti-terror campaigns were launched to avenge anything
which happened in connection with Building 7.
For these reasons, I
will take the commander-in-chiefs' silence on this subject as
permission to speak freely. And the family members who lost loved ones
on 9/11 want this topic discussed.
Moreover,
if Building 7 collapsed for reasons other than the official
explanation, that does not necessarily show nefarious intent. For
example, Paul K. Trousdale - a structural engineer with decades of
experience - says
:
I had always thought the 3rd building was destroyed to prevent unpredictable collapse.
Here It Is
Have you ever seen Building 7 collapse? Here's footage from several different angles:
Top Experts Say Official Explanation Makes No Sense
Numerous structural engineers - the people who know the most about
office building vulnerabilities and accidents - say that the official
explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on
9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates the law of
physics":
- Two professors of structural engineering at a
prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo
Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)
- Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings:
I
agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings. The
most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were
imploded
- John D. Pryor, with more than 30 years experience:
The
collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a
controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the
original investigation.
- Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:
From
videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior
to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical
line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out,
and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line
in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the
building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one
can see the similarities
- Kamal
S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering
from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience, says:
Photos
of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the
unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as
well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well
planned and controlled demolition
- Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry:
World Trade Center 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Buildings do not suddenly fall straight down by accident
- Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, writes:
Why
would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10
seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would
all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven
seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in
any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three
collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of
the dust.
- Graham John Inman points out:
WTC
7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and
external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a
steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on
this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?
- Paul W. Mason notes:
In
my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically
into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by
controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible
explanation!
- David Scott says:
Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced
collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .
- Nathan Lomba states:
I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for
the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The
gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures
collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating
causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from
an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the
argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent
that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were
exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the
argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural
framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature
of the failures.Neither of the official precipitating sources
for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the
floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they
finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that,
given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural
framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the
burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel
members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the
individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have
dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the
flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same
rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have
resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining
intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and
stiffness.Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to
compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its
tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the
structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken,
the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the
burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist
toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at
which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless,
the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper
floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a
concentric, vertical collapse.For this reason alone, I rejected
the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of
hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition
of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse
modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the
causes for the structural failures.
- Edward E. Knesl writes:
We
design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist
the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall
structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is
impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of
the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We
do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate
internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the
top.The engineering science and the law of physics simply
doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled
demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening
effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the
partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that
more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse.
Where would such energy would be coming from?
- Antonio Artha,with 15+ years of experience in building design
Fire
and impact were insignificant in all three buildings. Impossible for
the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not
suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise.
The symmetrical "collapse" due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics
It
is virtually impossible for WTC building 7 to collapse as it did with
the influence of sporadic fires. This collapse HAD to be planned
- Travis McCoy, M.S. in structural engineering
- James Milton Bruner,
Major, U.S. Air Force, instructor and assistant professor in the
Deptartment of Engineering Mechanics & Materials, USAF Academy, and
a technical writer and editor, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
It
is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid
hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire. This is very
suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living
- David Anthony Dorau,
practicing structural engineer with 18 years' experience in the
inspection and design of buildings under 5 stories tall, who worked as a
policy analyst for the Office of Technology Assessment, an arm of the
U.S. Congress providing independent research and reports on
technological matters
- Russell T. Connors, designed many buildings and other types of structures
- Lester Jay Germanio, 20+ years experience
- Daniel Metz, 26+ years experience
- Jonathan Smolens, 11 years experience, with a specialty in forensic engineering
- William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College
The above is just a sample. Many other structural engineers have questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous experts in other disciplines, including:
- The
former head of the Fire Science Division of the
government agency which claims that the World Trade
Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of
Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s
leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in
mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called
for an independent review of the World Trade Center
collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a
peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST
investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has
assembled should be archived. I would really like to see
someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally
and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.
- A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
- Harry
G. Robinson, III - Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of
Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President of two
major national architectural organizations - National Architectural
Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural
Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor
bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute of
Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the
District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies
Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global /
Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies.
Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple
Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam - says:
The
collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
implode as they did.
- A prominent
physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in
Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory
for why Building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
Again,
this essay is not questioning whether or not Al Qaeda carried out the
9/11 attacks, or even the collapse of the Twin Towers.
It is simply questioning why a third building which was never hit by a plane collapsed on 9/11.
»
- advertisements -
It's all good, Vic.
Remember the discussion, though. Government in some form is inevitable. We have to do our best to make it as fair and proper as we can.
Peace to you, as well.
:D
Government in some form is inevitable.
In our lifetimes, yes. And your points are well-taken.
In the lives of our kids, or their kids and so on, I think that no. I am bullish on humanity that way.
Best to you and yours, and all trying to do right in this world.
Other than expecting a "constitutional convention" to have some sort of meaning/impact (would just create a new set of rulers), I'm in total agreement.
The three buildings were intentionally demo-ed as part of an emergency contingency plan to prevent uncontrolled collapses.
This plan would have been put in place after the first twin tower attempt.
NO ONE, certainly not government functionaries, not a mayor, or not even a certain VP, would EVER want to fess up to being the ones who "pulled the plug" on those buildings, even if it was the sound crisis management decision, with people still inside. The public would never understand.
That in itself has nothing to do with who staged the attacks, would have been in a position to stop the attacks, helped facilitate the attacks, or knew that there was an emergency action plan in place.
i have been waiting for that statement for
some time now. thanks and it is pure bullshit.
it was all about spy vs spy and resource wars,
the people who died were in the way of the plan.
the mic needs energy and it happens to be oil at this
time. they, it, does not concern itself with
humanitary emergency contingency. funny.
Blind one... it's possible that the argument was that "emergency contingency" was the story that would be used.
But, again, why WTC7? I'd argue that WTC7 was the target, that everything else was just a distraction. The neocons (and mic) got their New Perl Harbor, and the financial and energy sectors got incriminating evidence (that might have killed all confidence in the system) wiped out.
all 4 locations targets, perhaps 7
evidentiary target, but all symbolic
targets, maybe some heisting, gold,
from towers?
collapse not result of contingency.
this was the full intention from
the start. imo. the plan, ya'll
know.
" this was no boating accident ".
r.d. "jaws"
what? iraq and afghanistan did it.
together in the bathtub with pakistan
and venizuela. no?
Saddam once was heralded by the US. And then there's the ISI...
zh loses credibility when it posts crap like this. you guys remind me of a jehovah's witness girlfriend i had. on certain topics we discussed it was like talking to a freekin' wall.
you 9/11'ers have a pretty low opinion of your fellow man to belive that not one person involved in the alleged conspiracy would come forward and spill the beans.
the really big conspiracies are in front of our faces- the entrenchment of the world elite, government capture by financial insiders and influence peddling etc.
Someone step forward and then what? Get laughed at by you and your programmers?
Do some research on the Manhattan Project and get back to me on how something BIG can be kept a secret.
Boy does it ever get hard educating people... (or fighting off paid trolls.)
media monarchy: barry jennings, key witness to wtc7 explosions, dead at 53
Here's some more
http://imaginativeworlds.com/forum/showthread.php?15074-9-11-The-Dead-Wi...
Some excerpts
o David Wherley (US General who ordered fighter jets to scramble on 9/11) -- Train crash
o Ezra Harel (Chairman of the Israeli Company That Handled Security For All 9/11 Airports) -- Heart attack
o John P. O'Neill (FBI Counter-terrorism expert, Obsessed with catching Osama Bin Laden, Suspected Clinton/Bush/FBI complicity in the cover-up and protection of Bin Laden) -- Died in the WTC on 9/11
o Bertha Champagne (Longtime babysitter for 911 Perp Marvin Bush's family) -- Crushed by a car
Wow, the lie of the century from our government about 9/11. And the government uses this lie as an excuse to grant themselves new security powers over the American people and to spend trillions of dollars on increased defense spending and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All in the name of fighting terrorism. But the question is, who are the real terrorists?
I've been studying this now for over a year & i've made my own conclusions, 9/11 had to be an inside job. If this had been a real attack, jet fighters would have been all over that city .......... nothing, it's as if "they" just let it happen.
"The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives."
- Winston Churchill
yes, the NORAD response and the numerous false exercises that day (orchestrated by Cheney) are powerful evidence
Directed Energy Weapon -
Where Did the Towers Go?
Dr. Judy Wood - B.S.,M.S.,Ph.D - proves not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt whatsoever:
1) That the “official” or “government” explanation for the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11 is, scientifically, false through and through.
2) That the WTC buildings were not destroyed by heat generated from burning jet fuel or from the conventional “burning” of any other substance or substances.
3) That the WTC buildings were not destroyed by mini-nuclear weaponry.
4) That the WTC buildings were not destroyed by conventional explosives of any kind, be they TNT, C4 or RDX, nor were they destroyed by welding materials such as thermite, thermate, or “nano-thermite.”
5) That there was in fact no high heat at all involved either in bringing about the destruction of the buildings or generated by the destruction of them.
http://www.degaray.com/misc/139_WhereHasAllTheRubbleGone.html
Indeed yes, that big fucking plane flying into the building at 300 MPH with a full fuel load is completely irrelevant. Good old American engineering, with 100 years of experience in how to create more load bearing power using less steel, could never result in a unforseen collapse. Nope, nothing to see here, move along.
I give up. I am buying 2700 cases of SPAM and 50 cases of .223. Everything is a conspiracy, and I am going to be the conspiracy king. I have Elvis and Janis Joplin hostage in my rural cabin. Come try to pry their rhinestoned costumes from my cold dead fingers.
yup
Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition:
http://www.nucleardemolition.com
http://tinyurl.com/2uejh7h
Your links are fake Pseudo Anonym.
They don't go to the Dimitri interview. Here is a the segment where he explains how the zero box is placed exactly 77 meters below the building. The full interview is 4 hours long. Tunga posted the trailer below and in it you can see photographs of the bomb crater.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFgxqYI28Wc&NR=1
You are killing me. Shadowy Dimitri placed the "zero box" exactly 77 meters below building #7????
With TRILLIONS of tons of rubble cascading down into the foundation holding up this small number of acres of buildings, Dimitri needed to place the end of the world box exactly 77 metters deep? What if the foundation of the building was only 60 meters deep? Did Dimitri roll up his sleeves and dig? What the f...??? Is this a Jason Borne movie? Do the real powers in NYC even talk to a Russian thug named Dimitri or do they have their own thugs? What freakin planet does this crap come from?
Bedrock in Manhattan is many, many meters deep- much deeper than 77 meters. This idea would also explain why the "jet fuel" made the basements of the Trade Towers glow at 1500 degrees F for seven weeks.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.php
A great explanation to consider.
Thanks for the link.
Thanks.
Correction of the statement
"And no one was killed when Building 7 collapsed."
A secret service agent was killed.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/craig-miller.htm
The Congressional Record
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r107:FLD001:H51497
"Madam Speaker, Building 7 of the World Trade Center housed a number of Federal Government offices, including the IRS, the EEOC, the Defense Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York field office of the United States Secret Service. The field office was destroyed on September 11 and, tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed."
+10
Find out what was in 7 WTC and you will go a long way toward finding out why it was sabotaged and collapsed.
Yawn. I first came to Zerohedge a few weeks ago when it was performing an invaluable service by keeping the Fukushima catastrophe in the spotlight after the mainstream media, with its gnat-like attention span, had lost all interest.
But I now realize this site is mainly a hang out for consipiracy nutjobs, peddling every discredited conspiracy from NASA staging the moonlandings to Obama being born in Kenya.
Of course there is no point arguing with conspiracy theorists. It's like trying to argue with religioius fundamentalist. They just happen to know the 'real truth' and no rational discussion will change their mind. If a time machine existed that allowed these folks to actually go back and witness Barack Obama emerging from his mother's womb in Hawaii, they wouldn't believe their lying eyes - because the Elders of Zion have interfered with the space-time continuum, dontcha know.
The paradox, of course, is that consipiracy theorists usually ask us to accept an explanation that is vastly more improbable than the simple truth.
WTC building 7 collapsed as a consequence of a catostophic fire resulting from the terrorist attacks on the World Trace Center towers. Anyone who prefers to believe that it was deliberately detroyed by some sort of controlled demolition is just plain stupid. Beavis and Butthead-level stupid.
The wit and wisdom of Carnak. we miss ya Johnny!! Milestones
There is a plethora of material here, given in multiple links by both the author (thanks, GW...) and posters. Have a look at the information objectively, then come back and say we are wrong.
Read it. Embarrasingly stupid. You are wrong.
Okay. Thanks for your consideration. I appreciate it.
:D
oh you are so cute.........
oops double post
Yes we "prefer" controlled demolition to sponteneous combustion.
Do you seriously think your comment is going to have any effect.
It's You versus Issac Newton brother. You don't stand a chance.
Take a physics class will ya.
Here's the challenge you try and replicate the event using fire and I will replicate the event using explosives.
I guarantee you will fail and I won't.
If fire destroyed steel, your gas BBQ grill would be single use only.
"It's You versus Issac Newton brother. You don't stand a chance."
"If fire destroyed steel, your gas BBQ grill would be single use only."
Checkmate! :-)
I seem to recall someone trying to duplicate the vanishing airplane trick that happened with the "plane" that hit the Pentagon. Try as he could, he couldn't make aluminum vaporize using the same materials that would have been at the Pentagon (based on the official story). You just can't lie when it comes to physics.
If you will recall the Civil War, which wasn't so civil, one of the central battles was over the railroads. When a calvery troop would penetrate enemy lines, they would lift a bunch of rails off of the bed, light a fire under a big tree, and cook them rails. When things got hot enough, they would twist them around the tree.
Anybody want to argue physics about ongoing fires and steel trusses that aint nearly as think as a rail track and hold up a building as big as the WTC?
Once again, you are too smart to trade. The markets eat people who are lazy, stupid, or are too smart for their own good. The markets reward wisdom. The markets especially award wise skeptics.
Expect to get a personal visit from Darwin...
Darwin, Darwin, Darwin...
Interesting that you patriots can do no more than say "you are all stupid, praise Bush" but yet we can offer tons of evidence. Have you never seen what happens in history when rich all-powerful assholes get in charge? Pull your head out of your fucking ass moron, it's fucking idiots like you that let them get away with what they do.
Assuming that was directed at me, I can see we are exactly on the same side. But, it is interesting that you think I am a Bush appologist or have a poltical agenda.
This society is burning. I like your spunk. Keep thinking for yourself. Maybe the WTC thing turns out the way you thought or not, but your critical approach to what we are being fed is you ONLY DEFENSE.
Yeah. We're all crazy here. A small fire would easily melt tempered steel beams. Never mind the fact that you can hold a copper penny inside a blazing fire for hours and hours and it won't do a thing to it. Enormous, thick, strong tempered steel girders would easily melt in a small fire. Also the entire direction the nation has taken since 9/11 from suspending our rights, to unlimited endless war, to the collapse of our Pozi Financial system is all purely coincidence and our government and our media has never misled or told the public any lie ever. We are all total nut jobs here. Thanks for enlightening us.
You are stupid.
Apparently, I am stupid too. Thanks for saving me from a life of stupidness. I will now accept what I am told. In case you haven't noticed, people don't come here because they are sheep and conformists, but you have apparently adopted ZH as a different form of conformism. In the words of Morpheus, "We are all here because of a certain propensity for disobediance."
Consider this, I could be wrong. Can you say that too, or have you closed your mind?
Could you just consider, just for a moment, that your tax dollars are sometimes wasted, and very intelligent people whose jobs it is to do things to protect you, are fighting yesterday's wars? That is a universally recognized maxim in military history, isn't intelligence JUST A LITTLE like that? Maybe, there was no support in Congress for international terrorism at that time. Maybe they were concerned with the savings and loan problem, domestic terrorists, or whatever. How does a bureaucracy make the adjustments to the future threat? History teaches us that they don't. The USA literally got it ass kicked in the Uboat attack at the beginning of WWII. It was so bad, the Navy bunkered in our harbors and wouldn't venture forth to protect American shipping. The USA has NEVER been prepared for any conflict in our entire history. We always fell back on our manufacturing base to pull our chestnuts out of the fire. Of course, we have no manufacturing base anymore, so I would advise you not to push your sons into a military career.
Despite my lack of tact, I have read a lot of GW's stuff and I do appreciate his intellect, but I don't see the motivation of the powers that be to mess up a money making machine like the USA has been for 100 years. It will take a whole lot of convincing to make me think that they would make more money by destroying the USA all at once rather than slowly bleeding it. However, now that things have fallen out the way they have, there is no doubt in my mind that they really are grabbing everything they can get.
The world runs on oil. The oil is running out, but the Middle East and Central Asia have the most of what's left. Vice Predator Cheney was always well aware of this. He and other masters of war knew they had to go and stake a big claim on the rest of the world's oil reserves. They knew they couldn't justify it without "a new pearl harbor".
They weren't trying to "destroy the USA all at once". They were making sure that its superpower-hyperpower momentum would not stall and to make sure that they were the ones getting stronger sucking every drop of oil out of the ground and, as corollary, that any sovereign nation that could some day oppose The (Evil) Empire would not be getting stronger with that oil.
9-11 and The Evil Empire are hard for most deniers to see for what they are probably for much the same reason as molested children in denial defend their abusive parents as hard as they can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl2JQfxnnHU
Joe Rogan's "The American War Machine"
Yup, but that doesn't mean the people in power needed to gerrymander the destruction of their own powerbase to bet the sheep on board. Your argument is that the vermin in central banking and politics, and oil have sweeping powers. I agree and counter that they could touch off a war using the same techniques they have used over the last 100 years. In fact, it's easier today because people don't read or think about anything but American Idol. So why the necessity to blow up so many people on American soil? Wars are easy to create.
And create it they did.
I'm right and you don't know it.
"Despite my lack of tact, I have read a lot of GW's stuff and I do appreciate his intellect, but I don't see the motivation of the powers that be to mess up a money making machine like the USA has been for 100 years. It will take a whole lot of convincing to make me think that they would make more money by destroying the USA all at once rather than slowly bleeding it."
I believe that the article was focusing on WTC7 and how it "failed," not on who did it or why.
That stated, you make the assumption that the game was still on and going well. What it people knew that things were going to go into the toilet? I'd think that there's a stronger argument for things going quickly if not creating such an event than from such an event. Again, your argument provides for no measurement: at the heart of the WTC7 argument/issue is something highly measurable- gravity.
Maybe building seven was just poorly constructed (Chinese drywall or infested with steel-eating termites) and was going to collapse anyway.
Steel eating termites with freaking lasers attached to their heads..