WTC 7 (Building 7)

[Jazzy]

Verinage is not done on steel framed buildings, still less with fire. You are speculating that fire can achieve the same simultaneous movement of structural columns across entire floors of a building as a carefully-arranged set of hydraulic rams or chains, and yet you claim to take a scientific perspective on these questions?

I haven't actually claimed you haven't until now.

The coefficient of expansion of steel is 12 x 10^-6, so 15 M beams will expand when heated to 1100 deg C: 12 * 10^-6 * 15 * 1080 = 194 millimeters or 7.6 inches.

This is exactly the effect of a "a carefully-arranged set of hydraulic rams or chains". It is also what doomed WTC 7, and something I learned thoroughly when I was eleven. But not you, obviously.

All I am aware of is the bluster of people like you who would pretend that such a project is laughable or unnecessary.

From your point of view it would be instructive. For any educated person it is both laughable and unnecessary.

Jazzy: you <snip> you.

That's what my wife thought - once, anyway.

 

[F4Jock]

So is it intentional policy by way of a conspiracy or just the way it is??

In my opinion it is an intentional program to perpetuate and expand the power of government and those running it. It fulfills the criteria of conspiracy as it has doubtless been discussed and planned and its true purpose is couched in an ongoing smokescreen of concern for the common man about whom, once again in my opinion, the government cares not at all except as stated in the first sentence.

 

[George B]

In my opinion it is an intentional program to perpetuate and expand the power of government and those running it. It fulfills the criteria of conspiracy as it has doubtless been discussed and planned and its true purpose is couched in an ongoing smokescreen of concern for the common man about whom, once again in my opinion, the government cares not at all except as stated in the first sentence.

Hmmm . . . seems like a new subject to this Thread . . . what to call the new Thread . . . ??? F4Jock . . . since you brought up the subject . . . what would you call a Thread about a "Conspiracy to intentionally legislate to make people slaves to their material desires and thereby give up their freedoms in return" . . .?

 

[F4Jock]

That WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition is not something I can prove...
but the great amount of circumstantial bits and pieces regarding WTC 7 and 9/11 in it's entirety paints a persuasive picture I neither like nor am able to ignore.

I applaud your first sentence!

In my opinion the circumstantial bits and pieces only paint a "persuasive picture" if one makes a concerted effort to connect dots that are not only far apart but in some cases on different papers. Perhaps in the future you will come to that conclusion. Until then I'm happy with sentence 1.

 

[F4Jock]

Hmmm . . . seems like a new subject to this Thread . . . what to call the new Thread . . . ??? F4Jock . . . since you brought up the subject . . . what would you call a Thread about a "Conspiracy to intentionally legislate to make people slaves to their material desires and thereby give up their freedoms in return" . . .?

I wouldn't. I consider this merely a brief tangent you and I explored. If Mick thinks it deserves a thread that's his call. I'm pretty much done with it.

 

[Mick West]

I wouldn't. I consider this merely a brief tangent you and I explored. If Mick thinks it deserves a thread ...

Nope, not if it's done with.

 

[Oxymoron]

The coefficient of expansion of steel is 12 x 10^-6, so 15 M beams will expand when heated to 1100 deg C: 12 * 10^-6 * 15 * 1080 = 194 millimeters or 7.6 inches.

Are you suggesting structural engineers do not take into account the effect of fire induced thermal expansion, (in excess of 7.6 ins per 15mtrs of beam), on the structural integrity of a high rise building. In short do they not think 'fire = hot = expansion = fall down', unless we take this into account.

 

[Mick West]

Are you suggesting structural engineers do not take into account the effect of fire induced thermal expansion, (in excess of 7.6 ins per 15mtrs of beam), on the structural integrity of a high rise building. In short do they not think 'fire = hot = expansion = fall down', unless we take this into account.

I believe that's exactly the case:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/RemarksSunderAug212008briefing.pdf

This study has identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse. For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse.
...
No design professional is assigned the explicit responsibility for ensuring the adequate fire safety performance of a building's structural system.
Architects typically use catalogued test data to specify fireproofing thickness to meet the fire ratings in the building code. Structural engineers design buildings to withstand its weight and to resist earthquake and wind loads, but are not required to consider fire as a load condition in structural design. Fire protection engineers design the active fire protection systems in buildings—such as sprinklers, fire alarms, and smoke management systems. They may or may not be called upon to assist the architect with the design of the passive fire protection system—such as fireproofing and compartmentation.
WTC 7, which included floor spans as long as 54 feet, had a structural system design that is in widespread use in other tall buildings. The length of floor spans is important. Longer beams can be subject to proportionally greater thermal expansion effects, but such effects may also be present in buildings with shorter span lengths depending on the design of the structural system.


We strongly recommend that building owners, operators, and designers evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of the structural system. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more features such as: long-span floor systems, connections not designed for thermal effects, asymmetric floor framing, and/or composite floor systems.
If thermal effects concerns are raised by this evaluation, possible retrofits may include strengthening connections, strengthening floor framing, increasing structural redundancy, and adding additional fireproofing to vulnerable areas. There clearly are ways available to address any concerns that arise from this analysis, but this situation should be analyzed by owners, operators, and designers for each structure on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Jazzy]

Are you suggesting structural engineers do not take into account the effect of fire induced thermal expansion, (in excess of 7.6 ins per 15mtrs of beam), on the structural integrity of a high rise building. In short do they not think 'fire = hot = expansion = fall down', unless we take this into account.

I have a suggestion for you: why not read the relevant report? [...]

My answer would be they thought "A two hour fire protection is long enough to get everyone out and then some", followed by "And anyway the sprinkler system will take care of the fire". I'm pretty sure they never considered a seven-hour heat soak. Architects aren't trained in a wartime environment. Or at least they weren't.

 

[Oxymoron]

I have a suggestion for you: why not read the relevant report? [...]

My answer would be they thought "A two hour fire protection is long enough to get everyone out and then some", followed by "And anyway the sprinkler system will take care of the fire". I'm pretty sure they never considered a seven-hour heat soak. Architects aren't trained in a wartime environment. Or at least they weren't.

So what about people who are trapped above the (very normal flaming inferno started by some rags or a coffee percolator) and can't get down. Are they supposed to set the timer to 2.5 hours and kiss their butts goodbye?

And why has thermal expansion never caused a total collapse in similar buildings which have burned far fiercer and much much longer?

These are very reasonable questions are they not?

 

[F4Jock]

I have a suggestion for you: why not read the relevant report? [...]

My answer would be they thought "A two hour fire protection is long enough to get everyone out and then some", followed by "And anyway the sprinkler system will take care of the fire". I'm pretty sure they never considered a seven-hour heat soak. Architects aren't trained in a wartime environment. Or at least they weren't.

American Institue of Steel Constructors

11.4.4. Does a 2-hour fire rating mean that a building will last for 2-hours in a fire?

No. The ratings relate only to the ability of individual components and assemblies in a building to meet the required performance in the standard test. Buildings are classified by types of construction, each with specific requirements pertaining to the combustibility of construction materials and the fire resistance ratings required for the various building components (members, elements) and assemblies (systems). In some fire events, the performance may be in excess of two hours. In a severe challenge fire (usually, an extreme event that is not anticipated), the performance may be less than 2 hours.

 

[Mick West]

So what about people who are trapped above the (very normal flaming inferno started by some rags or a coffee percolator) and can't get down. Are they supposed to set the timer to 2.5 hours and kiss their butts goodbye?

And why has thermal expansion never caused a total collapse in similar buildings which have burned far fiercer and much much longer?

These are very reasonable questions are they not?

Very reasonable.

You need escape routes that are isolated from the fire - so insulated stairwells with fire doors.

Thermal expansion is not a simple factor by itself - a simple product of length and intensity of fire. You need to account for the geometry of the building, the length of spans, and the type of joints.

 

[F4Jock]

Very reasonable.

You need escape routes that are isolated from the fire - so insulated stairwells with fire doors.

Thermal expansion is not a simple factor by itself - a simple product of length and intensity of fire. You need to account for the geometry of the building, the length of spans, and the type of joints.

Having been in the fire service.....

The idea of fire rating, multiple stairwells and fire doors and to some extent sprinklers is to hopefully contain fire until it can be fought and controlled and to allow the occupants of a building to evacuate or be evacuated in the meantime. Most fires are, unlike WTC 7, point origin events that will allow such evolutions and evacuations. If memory serves WTC 7 was a multi-floor, multipoint conflagration, suppression of which was hindered by the general absence of available water for both the sprinklers and suppression. Again, if memory serves, approximately four thousand people were successfully evacuated from WTC 7. Even horribly compromised by events no one really foresaw, the building's safety systems did their jobs.

 

[Jazzy]

So what about people who are trapped above the (very normal flaming inferno started by some rags or a coffee percolator) and can't get down. Are they supposed to set the timer to 2.5 hours and kiss their butts goodbye?

The sprinklers would come on and they would get wet.

And why has thermal expansion never caused a total collapse in similar buildings which have burned far fiercer and much much longer?

Because they weren't wholly long span beam slender column buildings standing on bridge beams.

These are very reasonable questions are they not?

Not when you've seen the questions and their answers as many times as you have, and you ask them again.

 

[jomper]

This is exactly the effect of a "a carefully-arranged set of hydraulic rams or chains". It is also what doomed WTC 7, and something I learned thoroughly when I was eleven. But not you, obviously.

What abject nonsense. Fire does not produce a coordinated and parallel shift of columns across whole floors of a building - even the NIST animation does not show that - and you are claiming to have known since you were eleven what Dr Sunder described as a new phenomenon in 2007.

 

[Cairenn]

A ram would be used to disconnect the floor from the supporting column, and that is Exactly what the fire did.

If a floor span EXPANDS then it serves as a RAM moving the columns outward.

Do you remember me asking about the 'bulge' in the WTC 7. This would explain that.

It was bad enough when you wanted to have had someone manage to rig the building with explosives, without anyone noticing it. Now you seem to be implying that they managed to move in hydraulic rams. Now you want the droppings tested for Unicorn DNA.

I

 

[Jazzy]

What abject nonsense.

Ah, the talking to the mirror part.

Fire does not produce a coordinated and parallel shift of columns across whole floors of a building

It must, if the columns are tied to the floors when the floors expand. The columns are going to bend in the direction of least resistance (outwards from the building center) as the floors are laterally in compression, normally forcing them to bow downwards.

If a floor one side or the other of a central column drops, then that column will attempt to follow it, for it will have lost that lateral restraint. If that column is standing on a bridge beam then Robert is your father's brother.

If a floor cascade begins, then lower down the vertical columns, somewhere, a column, which is transferring the loads from every point above it, will pass into instability and buckle. Such columns cannot stand erect, even on their own.

even the NIST animation does not show that

You can tell that - how?

and you are claiming to have known since you were eleven what Dr Sunder described as a new phenomenon in 2007.

You may have learned what expansion is. Unfortunately you never asked yourself what the consequences might be. Nor did Dr. Sunder.

I began my science training at a very fine school in 1955. I realize now it was very special, for it demanded, even when we were little boys, that we considered the consequences of actions.

Science.

 

[jomper]

Ah, the talking to the mirror part.It must, if the columns are tied to the floors when the floors expand. The columns are going to bend in the direction of least resistance (outwards from the building center) as the floors are laterally in compression, normally forcing them to bow downwards. If a floor one side or the other of a central column drops, then that column will attempt to follow it, for it will have lost that lateral restraint. If that column is standing on a bridge beam then Robert is your father's brother.You can tell that - how?You may have learned what expansion is. Unfortunately you never asked yourself what the consequences might be. Nor did Dr. Sunder.I began my science training at a very fine school in 1955. I realize now it was very special, for it demanded, even when we were little boys, that we considered the consequences of actions.(Science?)Whereas in your case that didn't happen.

Fire does not cause the SIMULTANEOUS and PARALLEL failure of columns ACROSS WHOLE FLOORS in the manner of Verinage controlled demolition. This is obvious from the NIST animation by LOOKING at it, and it's supposed to support your case. Stop trolling.

 

[Jazzy]

Fire does not cause the SIMULTANEOUS and PARALLEL failure of columns ACROSS WHOLE FLOORS in the manner of Verinage controlled demolition. This is obvious from the NIST animation by LOOKING at it, and it's supposed to support your case. Stop trolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit.

I'm sorry but this makes perfect sense to me, and it agrees with the moving gif. The initial floor cascade, the inevitable buckling of column 79, cascading further floors, more columns buckling as a consequence, until nearly all you are left with is the exterior shell, which buckled low down beneath the video frame.

And buckling collapse has a silent beginning which progresses rapidly to free fall. The "bang" at the start of this thread's initiating video is the sound of half of WTC7's interior hitting its ground zero before its exterior had even begun to move.

Perhaps it is that you don't realize that in such circumstances, where a column in a loaded structure buckles, its resistance to downward motion is almost instantly zero. The loads it carried are transferred to the columns surrounding it very quickly indeed. The whole structure would bounce. If those columns surrounding this failed column were in a similar state they would "tip". The bounce probably snapped already-strained floor connections, causing floor cascades and more column buckling failures. Steel is a very elastic material.

 

[jomper]

Exactly. Nothing simultaneous and parallel in what you have posted here, despite your insistence to the contrary upthread. What you have here are words like progressive and cascade, which do not describe the Verinage technique.

 

[jomper]

That gif animation looks less and less like the video evidence every time I see it. If it had been allowed to run for two more seconds it would've debunked itself, and it still wouldn't show as much of the collapse as the videos do.

 

[Oxymoron]

That gif animation looks less and less like the video evidence every time I see it. If it had been allowed to run for two more seconds it would've debunked itself, and it still wouldn't show as much of the collapse as the videos do.

As far as I am concerned, I think it does debunk itself.

We all saw how far debris is flung and the forces involved during the collapses of 1, 2 and 7 and yet we see from the video animation how millions of tons of concrete and steel neatly collapse within its own "footprint" and I do literally mean "footprint", See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1226-Debunked-WTC-Towers-Fell-in-Their-Own-Footprints massive steel columns and girders crash down 'silently' and 'considerately', without disturbing the exterior one iota.

Now lets be clear... according to the animation, the whole interior, from bottom to top, progressively collapsed without any dust being ejected through windows, no beams or columns falling outside of the footprint.

Now how is it that it is invisible and inaudible as well as unprecedented and contrary to physical laws.

 

[geeksquad100]

It may tick the boxes but it doesn't jibe with facts.

• No explosions heard.
• Fire burned for hours but didn't set off the explosives
• Still needed to bare walls, and bring a lot of explosives to tie to each steel frame member
• Replace all drywall, tape, mud and paint in 36 hours in 3 buildings
• Only one guy remembers this supposed stay away order
• Still have to cut some steel

No evidence was found to support any of this.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

You are joking right? LOL I mean did you really mean No explosions heard? and no evidence of explosives? while sighting the NIST report? OMG

NO EXPLOSIONS HEARD? WHO CAN MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE THAT WHO HAS RESEARCHED 9/11 MORE THAN 5 MINUTES?

[Admin: Wall of text removed]

 

[Mick West]

You are joking right? LOL I mean did you really mean No explosions heard? and no evidence of explosives? while sighting the NIST report? OMG

NO EXPLOSIONS HEARD? WHO CAN MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE THAT WHO HAS RESEARCHED 9/11 MORE THAN 5 MINUTES?

[Admin: Wall of text removed]

I've cut out your multi-page cut-and-paste there. Please make points more concisely.

The point NIST makes is that there were no "blast sounds" "during the collapse of WTC7". Of course there were reports of explosions that day - things were on fire, and things were falling 1000 feet. Everyone knows there are people saying they heard explosions. Nobody is denying that.

But when the towers fell, and when WTC7 fell there were no blast sounds. Nothing that sounded like a demolition charge.

Listen to this:

​

Then show some video or audio recording that has similar sounds as any of the building fell.

 

[Mick West]

massive steel columns and girders crash down 'silently' and 'considerately', without disturbing the exterior one iota.

The collapse of WTC7 was very different to WTC1&2, which were crushed from above.

But even so, the exterior of WTC7 was disturbed considerably more than one iota. Remember in the videos you can't see the lower third of the building, where the collapse started.

​

 

[George B]

You are joking right? LOL I mean did you really mean No explosions heard? and no evidence of explosives? while sighting the NIST report? OMG

NO EXPLOSIONS HEARD? WHO CAN MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE THAT WHO HAS RESEARCHED 9/11 MORE THAN 5 MINUTES?

[Admin: Wall of text removed]

I am in between on this issue. . . there were sounds . . . but also sounds which can be given alternative explanations other than intentional explosions . . . however, the most likely explanations are as Mick indicated. . . compressions, concussions, freak but minor explosions caused by volatile fluids, generators, transformers and so forth . . .

 

[Oxymoron]

Of course this sim is even better and shows how, without damage from wtcs1 &2,.... 7 would have continued collapsing internally and with no exterior sign, right up to the point where the 'unsupported 'skin' fell at virtually free fall speed thus allowing the 'accumulated debris' to spill outside' of the footprint.

​

Science and statistics... Don't you just love em

So lets look at sim v reality

​

Does that look like an accurate portrayal?

 

[Mick West]

Of course this sim is even better and shows how, without damage from wtcs1 &2,.... 7 would have continued collapsing internally and with no exterior sign, right up to the point where the 'unsupported 'skin' fell at virtually free fall speed thus allowing the 'accumulated debris' to spill outside' of the footprint.

I'm afraid I don't see your point. You know the simulation on the right there is the "without impact damage" run?

 

[Oxymoron]

I'm afraid I don't see your point. You know the simulation on the right there is the "without impact damage" run?

Yep... that's why I said "and shows how, without damage from wtcs1 &2,.... 7 would have continued collapsing internally and with no exterior sign,".

My point being, it is incomprehensible that such massively destructive forces as the internal collapse of WTC 7 could be constrained by the shell and then the shell/skin (which was so strong it contained the whole of the collapse and hid it from view), then becomes so weak, it collapses in virtual freefall.

 

[Mick West]

Yep... that's why I said "and shows how, without damage from wtcs1 &2,.... 7 would have continued collapsing internally and with no exterior sign,".

My point being, it is incomprehensible that such massively destructive forces as the internal collapse of WTC 7 could be constrained by the shell and then the shell/skin (which was so strong it contained the whole of the collapse and hid it from view), then becomes so weak, it collapses in virtual freefall.

Quantum entanglement is incomprehensible. That does not mean it does not work.

If it's so incomprehensible, why do so many experts in the field accept the explanation?

 

[hiper]

As weird as WTC 7's collapse may be...

What about the government 'war games' planned for 11/09/2001...

This is just to absurd for words.
How can one digest all these things and still remain loyal to the official explanation is beyond me really...

 

[Oxymoron]

Quantum entanglement is incomprehensible. That does not mean it does not work.

If it's so incomprehensible, why do so many experts in the field accept the explanation?

Quantum entanglement is an offshoot of quantum physics, a science which deals with or 'attempts to explain', the chaos at sub atomic 'Plank constant' levels.

There are recent research results implying large scale entanglement but to date this is measured in millimetres.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Quantum-Entanglement-Proved-at-the-Macroscale-122923.shtml

[h=1]Quantum Entanglement Proved at the Macroscale[/h]

The UCSB team, led by expert John Martinis, devised a simple experiment to prove the quantum principle. They placed two superconductor materials on a small chip. Each of the aluminum-based superconductors was less than one millimeter across, and they were placed a few millimeters apart from each other. The entire setup was then exposed to very low temperatures, which allowed for electrons to flow between the two devices without meeting any resistance. The experts noticed that all the electrons within the superconductors moved together, in a naturally coherent way, which was unexpected.

"There are very few moving parts, so to speak. It's a general fact that the larger an object is, the more classical it is in its behavior, and the more difficult it is to see quantum mechanical effects,"

I would therefore suggest that 'quantum entanglement' does not explain the phenomena which you claim "many experts in the field accept" as an explanation for the collapse of wtc7

 

[Mick West]

I would therefore suggest that 'quantum entanglement' does not explain the phenomena which you claim "many experts in the field accept" as an explanation for the collapse of wtc7

My point was that it was incomprehensible. Not that it had anything to do with WTC7.

The point is that just because something is incomprehensible, it does not mean it's not true.

The collapse of WTC7 seems incomprehensible to you. It does not seem incomprehensible to experts.

 

[Oxymoron]

My point was that it was incomprehensible. Not that it had anything to do with WTC7.

Sorry, I thought you were offering it as an explanation to do with WTC7.

The point is that just because something is incomprehensible, it does not mean it's not true.

Like conspiracy theories?

The collapse of WTC7 seems incomprehensible to you. It does not seem incomprehensible to experts.

Some scientists with government affiliations who have worked for years to come up with a 'theory', (data withheld), to explain the incomprehensible.

 

[Mick West]

As weird as WTC 7's collapse may be...

What about the government 'war games' planned for 11/09/2001...

This is just to absurd for words.
How can one digest all these things and still remain loyal to the official explanation is beyond me really...

Sounds like a separate topic.

I know you think there's a "weight of evidence". But it's what we call a "Gish Gallop", a huge pile of supposed evidence, none of which actually stands alone, and yet all together gives the illusion that there's some substance to the argument.

The problem is that you can gather a huge pile of "evidence" for ANY argument.

That's why it's important to focus long and hard on the individual elements, so you can build a case only from quality evidence. Not things that all have individual reasonable explanations, like the collapse of WTC 7.

 

[Mick West]

Some scientists with government affiliations who have worked for years to come up with a 'theory', (data withheld), to explain the incomprehensible.

But who is saying it's incomprehensible? People who were there ON THAT DAY thought that the building was going to collapse from the fire. Since that day tens of thousands of students have graduated with degrees in structural engineering - do they think it's incomprehensible?

It's not incomprehensible.

 

[hiper]

That's why it's important to focus long and hard on the individual elements, so you can build a case only from quality evidence. Not things that all have individual reasonable explanations, like the collapse of WTC 7.

Well I think we have looked long and hard on the collapse of WTC 7.
NIST's unwillingness to scientifically investigate this event coupled with the steel that was 'gone'...coupled with the uniqueness of it's collapse due to fire at the
same day as the other towers is raising substantial well founded suspicions.

 

[Oxymoron]

But who is saying it's incomprehensible? People who were there ON THAT DAY thought that the building was going to collapse from the fire. Since that day tens of thousands of students have graduated with degrees in structural engineering - do they think it's incomprehensible?

Very true.

Who sets the exams for the degrees?

Scientists affiliated to government?

How many students would pass these exams if they did not accept the OS?

Would you like to study for many years at great personal expense and sacrifice, only to fail the exams because you failed to parrot the required answers?

 

[Mick West]

Very true.

Who sets the exams for the degrees?

Scientists affiliated to government?

How many students would pass these exams if they did not accept the OS?

Would you like to study for many years at great personal expense and sacrifice, only to fail the the exams because you failed to parrot the required answers?

Everyone in the world forced to parrot the World Government's official story?

I think you should try talking to some experts. They are real honest people. This isn't 1984.

 

[Mick West]

Well I think we have looked long and hard on the collapse of WTC 7.
NIST's unwillingness to scientifically investigate this event coupled with the steel that was 'gone'...coupled with the uniqueness of it's collapse due to fire at the
same day as the other towers is raising substantial well founded suspicions.

Which have reasonable explanations.