Explosive demolition. You don't leave it to uneven fires to bring down an entire skyscraper - removing all columns support requires exact timing - to get the result you saw. Free fall acceleration.

It's demolition - 100% - the implications are too huge for many to imagine.

OP is new to the 7 conspiracy.

Join the fight:

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-05-25/here-it-final-ad-911-global-campaign

www.RememberBuilding7.org

I'm not disputing your conclusion but am curious as to the answer of my questions since they are major factors that were not mentioned in your analysis.

Did you consider the duration of the fire prior to WTC7's collapse?

Did you consider that WTC7 received significant damage from the collapse of both WTC1 and WTC2?

Thank you for the reply.

Did you consider that WTC7 received significant damage from the collapse of both WTC1 and WTC2?

Are you aware that the "significant damage" caused by 1 & 2 debris was nowhere near the column (79) that NIST claimed initiated the collapse?

Correct. Significant damage was done to other columns/supports. The load that they bare does not just vanish into thin air, however. It was unevenly distributed to the rest of the building. This put additional strain on the remaining columns/supports. Strain that they were not intended to support under normal circumstances- never mind the damage that they received from debris and long unattended fire.

It was blown to pieces.

People need to look into this building more. It's ignored so much because no one was killed in it - It was empty. Coincidence? Jesus Christ, BBC correspondent Jane Standley reported the collapse of WTC 7 20 minutes before it happened. She's standing with the building behind her reporting that it fell due to structural damage. It's scary how many people believe anything else.

very plausible

Why would they be going to Chicago if NY is so close?

What does Chicago have to do with flight 93? You don't seem to have any idea of what direction it was headed. See the Wikipedia page. It was not headed for New York, either.

technically building 3 collapsed that day and no plane hit it either.

This is one of the very few conspiracy theories which I am willing to consider as possibly true. I'm an ex-journalist and I take pleasure in debunking conspiracy theories like chemtrails which can be disproved with science. In the case of WTC7 the science points to a controlled demolition. Enough demolition experts have looked at the footage and said "that's a controlled demolition `to convince me that it was a controlled demolition. Maybe you are correct and the building was supposed to be hit by a third aircraft flying into the World Trade Center. This is the first time I have seen somebody connect the downed flight 93 with the collapse of WTC7. It's an interesting thought.

conspiracy theories like chemtrails which can be disproved with science

they can also be proved with science. Would you believe that there are people in charge that can control the weather, trigger volcanoes and earthquakes?

He was saying your suggestion may be right that the plane was MEANT to hit bldg. 7

I strongly doubt that the 4th plane was intended for WTC7. For the simple fact that before 9/11, WTC7 was an unknown building. Why would terrorists have picked WTC7 to attack, when the Empire State Building was just down the street? Why attack WTC7 when they could have flown the plane into the Statue of Liberty?

It would make no logical sense for terrorists to attack WTC7.

What I believe happened, is that they just straight up fucked up with WTC7. That building was intended to go down without any fanfare during the demolitions of either tower. Someone fucked up, and they had to wait. And they waited til late afternoon when they were hoping much of America had turned away from their television sets.

And luckily, most of the media never mentioned it. The media did so well at not mentioning WTC7, that most people out there still aren't aware that there was a 3rd building that went down that day.

So rather than examine the actual evidence and look to experts, you're just going on how it kind of looks to you based on your visual observation. Hmm. Nah don't bother with qualified experts, they're all paid shills right?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

I recommend you give Debunking 9/11 Debunking by David Ray Griffin a read.

I recommend you give the NIST report a read.

LOL if you read the NIST report we would be on the same page; it is the epitome of bad science. And to my understanding the NIST report has never been peer reviewed.

Edit: while i have you here, i would sincerely like to know why you come to this sub reddit if you think everyone here is an idiot and everything here is wrong.

Edit: while i have you here, i would sincerely like to know why you come to this sub reddit if you think everyone here is an idiot and everything here is wrong.

I don't think everyone here is an idiot and everything posted here is wrong.

But basically you're saying that if there were thousands and thousands of people talking about major world events and often totally misinterpreting them, inventing false scenarios, and engaging in paranoid rhetoric, you wouldn't see any merit in correcting their mistaken facts, and asking them why they're only critical of certain points of view but accept others without engaging that same level of critique?

The same way you like to point out what you see as falsity or lies or conspiracies in the world, I like to point out what I see as falsity or lies or logical inconsistencies in your theories.

I'm also genuinely interested in conspiracy theories, and I think it's a shame that a rational discussion of the interesting, plausible ones is corrupted by the irrational discussion of the wildly implausible ones.

Would you mind taking a few hours to check this out? The best, most well researched case for 9/11 being an 'inside job' I have ever seen.

https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/911/911_evidence_for_bombs_thermite_at_WTC.html

what happened to building 3? no plane hit it either, and it was there in the morning, but not there that night.

Why didn't you share your proof, if you've got it?? All you gave us is wild speculation, not even anything resembling proof or incontrovertible facts.

Nothing in the OP has any shred of proof, factual analysis, or anything like it.

I've examined the question many times before. It's not like you're the first person to question what happened in WTC 7. It's been discussed and debated around the world for over a decade now.

I don't know what you mean. All I did is point out that you've shared no proof with us, or anything close to it. If I made a post about a theory I had, yes I would probably provide some sort of evidence.

*Sherlock.

And I also get the feeling that Albert Einstein would attack the problem scientifically, using modern knowledge and computer models of the physical structure. He probably wouldn't just guess.

WTC 7 was not his by a plane. FACT

This is both undisputed and indisputable.

WTC 7 had 2 small office fire going on for 8 1/2 hours FACT. (who's getting blaimed for no sprinkler systems?)

Calling them "2 small office fires" is simply a blatant lie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

WTC 4,5,6 were immediately in the way of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. FACT They both were still standing afterwards FACT

The fact that certain structures were damaged in certain ways by certain debris, and others were damaged in certain other ways by certain other debris is, I agree, a statement of fact.

WTC 7 I the first steel frames structure to collapse from a fire. FACT

It may have been the first (and I'm not even sure that's true) but it certainly wasn't the last. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA

That was at Delft University of Technology in Holland in 2008. Not surprised you'd never heard of it, since it doesn't fit your neat little tale.

Steel melts at 2500 F degrees FACT

Flatly irrelevant, as we've already discussed in previous posts in this thread. Not sure why you keep saying it as though it had any shred of relevance.

Plane number 4. The one that crashed in Pennsylvania was going to WTC 7.

It was certainly taking a very odd route to get there. It had been flying directly toward Washington D.C. What makes you think it was going to alter course and head to NY?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Flight_paths_of_hijacked_planes-September_11_attacks.jpg

It takes at least 2 weeks of had planing AT LEAST to get a plan out to demolish a building.

I think that's actually a vast underestimation for a building the size of WTC 7. What is your point with this statement? Since you have no evidence of anybody planning a demolition, or wiring the building with the hundreds and hundreds of pounds of explosives and miles or wire necessary for a demolition of this size, it would seem to be a point against you.

This is possibly the single most debunked claim made by "truthers." Sure, steel melts at 2500 degrees. So what? Who cares? Steel does not need to melt in order to lose its structural integrity. It's a blatant strawman.

If steel doesn't have to melt in order to lose its structural integrity then how does it lose its structural integrity?

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

This seems to be very incomplete. They do not even know where this beam came from (says so right in the letter you provided). What was the chain of custody on this beam? Also this was published in December 2001. That must have been one hasty investigation. Also it says that this integrity loss in Building 7 was due to fire reaching temps of 1000 C (which is 1832 F) which is much higher than jet fuel burns. Not to mention there was NO jet fuel in Building 7 because no planes crashed into it, there were only "random fires" (not even visible from the outside of the structure) so what on Earth could have fed a random fire to make it go up to 1832 F?

That must have been one hasty investigation.

In what universe does it take more than 3 months to analyze a piece of metal?

Anyway, you asked about how steel works. I feel like you could find the answer to that extremely easily by googling it. I went a step further and linked you to a scientific analysis of the actual steel from WTC 7. If you want your question answered in greater detail regarding steel in general, just google "steel structural integrity temperature" or whatever.

I agree that I wish they'd gone into greater detail in the link I provided, but it was what I found after about 20 seconds of googling.

Also it says that this integrity loss in Building 7 was due to fire reaching temps of 1000 C (which is 1832 F) which is much higher than jet fuel burns. Not to mention there was NO jet fuel in Building 7 because no planes crashed into it, there were only "random fires" (not even visible from the outside of the structure) so what on Earth could have fed a random fire to make it go up to 1832 F?

How hot do fires normally burn? Is it out of the ordinary for a raging office fire to get that hot?

As far as what was feeding the fire, I mean, much of the contents of the building was flammable.

Actually I didn't ask you how steel works, I asked you if it didn't take melting to lose its structural integrity then how does it lose it's structural integrity. I don't consider that to be the same as "how steel works".

As far as how hot does a fire normally burn, isn't that based on what is feeding the fire? Different things have different temperatures in which they ignite and how much fuel that particular thing gives to the fire in question. Considering that WTC 7 was built within the standards and codes of building safety it had to have a significant amount of fireproofing, fire doors, etc. So what burned in there, paper? Paper is not a good fuel because it burns at a low temperature and not for very long. You can't even built a good fire in your fireplace with just paper, you need other stuff to catch and get your fire "roaring". I would argue that not much of the contents of the building was flammable. Steel and glass are not flammable, the wallboards would have had to be fire resistant up to a certain point, there would have been fire walls and fire doors and not to mention there were sprinkler systems installed. Also you can see from the videos of WTC 7 that there was no obvious conflagration. It almost didn't look like it was on fire at all. Not to mention it fell at almost free fall speed, and according to the NIST report the origin of the collapse was the north east corner of level 13, so all the structural integrity from the underground parts plus floors 1-12 would have at the very least slowed the fall, but instead it turned to dust. Also, why would 1,600 Architects and Engineers disagree with the way this went down? What do they have to gain by it?

It almost didn't look like it was on fire at all.

Why are you lying? There were massive, extremely visible fires which raged for hours. This is really not disputable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

Also, why would 1,600 Architects and Engineers disagree with the way this went down? What do they have to gain by it?

For the most part they're not gaining anything - they're simply wrong. Some of them have written books and been on tv though.

More importantly, 1600 is an extremely tiny percentage of the total number of architects and engineers in the world. Fractions of a percent. If I had 16 million architects and engineers disagreeing with your 16 hundred, would you be swayed?

Assuming that video is indeed of WTC 7, those are not "massive extremely visible fires". From the view that CNN was showing that day right before that building went down you couldn't even see that view of the building nor very much smoke coming out but you could certainly see the smoke from the burning rubble of the Twin Towers. That is a 42 story building. Those fires, in relation to the size of that building are not big at all. Many firemen that went into that building have reported that the only fires they saw inside that building were fairly small and had been put out by the time it collapsed. And while 1600 might be small comparatively speaking to the WORLD population it doesn't change the fact that is still a lot of architects and engineers that put their credibility on the line to go against the official "report" of what happened, and I haven't heard of any group of engineers and architects that have grouped up to defend that report, so you don't have 16 million architects and engineers that have come out with any information to sway me. Maybe they disagree, maybe they don't give a damn, maybe they are too cowardly to put their careers on the line but until they band together and take a stand one way or the other they are a moot point. But it's cool, you may certainly believe what you want. WTC 1 and 2 were made, designed specifically to withstand the impact of a 747, and building 7 was built so that if it were to catch fire it would be able to contain the damage from spreading through the building. If one were to collapse due to an airplane hitting it that could be called a fluke or blamed on faulty construction even, but the idea that 2 buildings fell from the same exact cause that they were designed to withstand, within minutes of each other and a 3rd building in the same area collapsed (in exactly the same manner; free fall and all that jazz) due to something that it was designed specifically to withstand is pretty ludicrous. Surely that would have to be the longest of longshots that 3 happened due to bad luck. Those buildings have code inspections and such, surely at least some of those problems in design construction and maintenance would have been noticed by someone at some point.

I obviously said, and meant, who cares what temperature steel melts at. The steel does not need to melt or even approach melting to lose most of its structural integrity.

Build me a 50 story steel office building in the model of the WTC, get the permits to light it on fire, and I'll light a match.

conspiracy theories like chemtrails which can be disproved with science

they can also be proved with science. Would you believe that there are people in charge that can control the weather, trigger volcanoes and earthquakes?