WTC 7 Controlled Demolition, but no Connection to the Conspiracy Theory.
This week in my blog, I thought I would revisit the World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) collapse. There was something that was bothering me from the last time I covered it, namely the presence of thermite, something used often in explosions. The NIST's explanation also bothered me greatly. So, I decided I would check out a number of different sources on the matter, and I was surprised to find myself agreeing it the controlled demolition theory. However, I do not agree that controlled demolition in that context necessarily means that it was a false flag operation. This is because the WTC 7 demolition wasn't used as fuel to go into the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The North and South Tower were.
The first article I read was from the Daily Mail, which is about a video that had been recently released through the freedom of information act (Daily). The video shows raging fires in the WTC 7, which they say was proof of that it collapsed on its own. The title is interesting, because they're using strong language in "kills" to try to convince everyone that it the conspiracy theory has been proven wrong.
Meanwhile, at Gaia, the author called the WTC 7 collapse a false flag based 1) on circumstantial evidence of that day, including the Bush family's business ties, one plane with a bunch of Saudis returning to their country, and millions of plane stocks sold the week before (Gaia Staff). And 2) the fact that a steel building has never collapsed due to a fire before or since that day. Their argument is an example of inductive reasoning, as they examine the discrepancies of created by the official story of the government.
"A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapses," by Michael Fullerton, utilizes pathos to get people to question the official narrative, then establishes that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. They state that "we owe a valid scientific explanation"(Fullerton) to the thousands that died that die. Their purpose in the article to discredit the official narrative, which was established by NIST, who were "tasked with officially explaining how WTC 7 fell" (Fullerton). They go on to use logos to break down the NIST's theory piece by piece, logically establishing that it was not a "scientific based" study, but rather "faith based pseudo science," (Fullerton) and then pointing out the obvious flaws. One such flaw in NIST's theory was that the building hadn't ended up in free-fall, when in fact, it had fallen at free-fall for 2.5 seconds, which is impossible with the official theory.
Washington's Blog, ran by a number of people, was one the last articles I read, in which the author writes in a very interesting way. It's more of a deductive reasoning article, as the author's point is stated at the beginning that the WTC may was definitely controlled demolition, but not for the sinister purposes that others have been led to believe. She uses quotes from over twenty experts in the field who all agree that it looked like a controlled demolition. However, the demolition of the building wasn't necessarily supposed to be used as a false flag. It could have been "demolished to prevent unpredictable collapse" (WashingtonsBlog).
In the end, I found myself gravitating away from the belief that it was the government who had done something shady. Certainly the government has its fair share of things to hide, like the demolition. But, the demolition was never used as fuel to get into Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather, WTC 1 and 2 (north and south towers), were the primary reasons to get in. Nobody died in the collapse of WTC 7 (WashingtonBlog), so there was nothing to avenge. It couldn't have been used as a reason to attack the terrorists in the middle East. It simply doesn't make sense. As shady as it may seem, the government did what was best for the world, though I can't say the same for the way they tried to cover it up.
Fullerton, Michael. "A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse." February 14th, 2011. https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/14/a-scientific-theory-of-the-wtc-7-collapse/. Accessed March 17th, 2018.
Gaia Staff. "Was 9/11 a False Flag? WTC 7 Might be the Smoking Gun." September 11th, 2017. https://www.gaia.com/lp/content/911-false-flag/. March 17th, 2018.
Washingtonsblog. "The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7 was not an Inside Job." Washington's Blog. September 15th, 2012. http://washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/911-at-least-this-aspect-of-it-was-not-an-inside-job.html. Accessed March 17th, 2018.
The first article I read was from the Daily Mail, which is about a video that had been recently released through the freedom of information act (Daily). The video shows raging fires in the WTC 7, which they say was proof of that it collapsed on its own. The title is interesting, because they're using strong language in "kills" to try to convince everyone that it the conspiracy theory has been proven wrong.
Meanwhile, at Gaia, the author called the WTC 7 collapse a false flag based 1) on circumstantial evidence of that day, including the Bush family's business ties, one plane with a bunch of Saudis returning to their country, and millions of plane stocks sold the week before (Gaia Staff). And 2) the fact that a steel building has never collapsed due to a fire before or since that day. Their argument is an example of inductive reasoning, as they examine the discrepancies of created by the official story of the government.
"A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapses," by Michael Fullerton, utilizes pathos to get people to question the official narrative, then establishes that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. They state that "we owe a valid scientific explanation"(Fullerton) to the thousands that died that die. Their purpose in the article to discredit the official narrative, which was established by NIST, who were "tasked with officially explaining how WTC 7 fell" (Fullerton). They go on to use logos to break down the NIST's theory piece by piece, logically establishing that it was not a "scientific based" study, but rather "faith based pseudo science," (Fullerton) and then pointing out the obvious flaws. One such flaw in NIST's theory was that the building hadn't ended up in free-fall, when in fact, it had fallen at free-fall for 2.5 seconds, which is impossible with the official theory.
Washington's Blog, ran by a number of people, was one the last articles I read, in which the author writes in a very interesting way. It's more of a deductive reasoning article, as the author's point is stated at the beginning that the WTC may was definitely controlled demolition, but not for the sinister purposes that others have been led to believe. She uses quotes from over twenty experts in the field who all agree that it looked like a controlled demolition. However, the demolition of the building wasn't necessarily supposed to be used as a false flag. It could have been "demolished to prevent unpredictable collapse" (WashingtonsBlog).
In the end, I found myself gravitating away from the belief that it was the government who had done something shady. Certainly the government has its fair share of things to hide, like the demolition. But, the demolition was never used as fuel to get into Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather, WTC 1 and 2 (north and south towers), were the primary reasons to get in. Nobody died in the collapse of WTC 7 (WashingtonBlog), so there was nothing to avenge. It couldn't have been used as a reason to attack the terrorists in the middle East. It simply doesn't make sense. As shady as it may seem, the government did what was best for the world, though I can't say the same for the way they tried to cover it up.
Works Cited
Daily Mail Reporter. "Footage that Kills the Conspiracy Theories: Unseen 9/11 Footage Shows WTC 7 Building Consumed by Fire." November 2nd, 2011. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html. Accessed March 17th, 2018.
Gaia Staff. "Was 9/11 a False Flag? WTC 7 Might be the Smoking Gun." September 11th, 2017. https://www.gaia.com/lp/content/911-false-flag/. March 17th, 2018.
Washingtonsblog. "The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7 was not an Inside Job." Washington's Blog. September 15th, 2012. http://washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/911-at-least-this-aspect-of-it-was-not-an-inside-job.html. Accessed March 17th, 2018.
Comments
Post a Comment