The government alleges ... that these two buildings and WTC7 caught fire and collapsed due to structural failure resulting from the fire; WTC1 & WTC2 within a couple of hours and WTC7 about 7 hours after the initial impact.
The leaseholder of the buildings, Larry Silverstein, said in a PBS interview that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition
All three buildings collapsed into their own footprints with little lateral deviation from vertical
Steve James wrote:Do any or all of the few specialized companies that do controlled demolition say that it must have been a controlled demolition? What, in fact, do the experts "on cd" say?
The government alleges ... that these two buildings and WTC7 caught fire and collapsed due to structural failure resulting from the fire; WTC1 & WTC2 within a couple of hours and WTC7 about 7 hours after the initial impact.
The leaseholder of the buildings, Larry Silverstein, said in a PBS interview that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition
Steve James wrote:So, which is it? Apparently the gov't "doesn't" allege or claim that WTC7 was not a controlled demolition.
Steve James wrote:If WTC7 was admittedly controlled, then the fact that it collapsed the way it did isn't relevant.
Steve James wrote:But, just sticking to the two towers, what "should" have happened? How should they have collapsed?
One of the companies in the US said early on it was obviously CD, then he retracted.
Dutch controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko is shown video of the WTC 7 collapse and immediately concludes it's controlled demolition.
The basic logical question remains: if the results were the same as controlled demolition, how could it have been initiated from a random event?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests