Bio: Artist with many life experiences, 64 year old male and a keen interest in the events of 911. My first reaction to the Twin Tower collapses was whoever planned it knew exactly where to hit those buildings in order to make them fall. It wasn’t until 2008, when I first got on the internet, that I started thinking maybe the buildings were brought down with controlled demolition. I didn’t get too deep into it at that time. I watched the videos produced by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth and several others, and it seemed to make sense. Two minor questions nagged at me, but I just dismissed them. I wanted to see the other side of the building when Richard Gage, founder of AE911Truth pointed out “normal, small, isolated, office fires”. He only showed the upwind side of Building 7. It also bothered me that I could see the building laying over flat on it’s side at the end of it’s fall, and Gage said it came “straight down”. I just ignored those questions and accepted his ideas. Something caused me to start looking closer in the summer of 2012, so I went back to look closer at the fires and the lean in Building 7. What I found disturbed me. The fires were extensive, and Building 7 clearly did not come straight down. In the course of studying Building 7, I discovered many recently released raw videos taken of the debris piles in lower Manhattan. I decided to start looking for cut beams from the controlled demolition. I looked, and looked, and looked, and found none. Every bit of structural evidence showed the buildings came apart at their connections by shearing, tearing, pulling, buckling, folding, and crushing, but no sign of cut members. At that point, I decided to lay aside ALL preconceived ideas, and look to see if indeed, gravitational collapse of the buildings were possible; to determine what occurred simply by observing with an unbiased mind. The AE911 group leaves viewers with the impression gravitational collapse impossible, leaving the only conclusion, controlled demolition. I have found it not only possible, but likely, that gravity was the culprit for the collapse of the Twin Towers and building 7. This blog will report my observations.
Joe Hil
World Trade Center 7 Facts 
wow… didnt get on the internet until 2008 … Impressive. Still waiting for the rational that explains how inertail resistance in a rated steel structure can be explained in light of freefall velocity. WTC7 is a key in the events of the day. Why were there hotpsots recorded by FLIR for weeks after the events of the day ?
Ding ding ding! First comment on my blog…you win the prize!
Thanks frostyboy. Follow along and you will be rewarded with the explanation, based on the evidence, not my opinion.
Hot spots, bombs, etc, are not covered here for one simple reason. If the building was “brought down” with controlled demolition, and all of those ancillary theories are true, it will show in the bones. It can’t be hidden. And there are plenty of bones to look at, despite claims they were all hauled off in the middle of the night.
Joe
Joe,
Try the paper below. It’s for WTC 1&2 but WTC7 has a similar form of construction. The theoretical analysis fits with what was observed and doesn’t require super hot fires to melt steel, soften steel or for large numbers of floor connections to fail simultaneously.
The failures of WTC 1,2 and 7 are essentially vertical buckling failures resulting from mechanical damage (plane impacts for 1&2, debris impact for 7) followed by fires that caused geometric distortions and failure of the floor trusses that braced the vertical columns against buckling.
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/1216/1/WTCpaper.pdf
Regards
Nick
There was no fire big enough to down building #7. Here’s a video an hour or so before it fell. At 3:08 you see the whole North side. I see three floors on fire.
Here’s a picture of the South side of building #7, facing the North tower, after it had fallen. There is no huge gaping hole. There is no massive fire going all the way up the building.
The whole core fell at approximately the same time followed by the perimeter within seconds. The building fell the same speed as a bowling ball dropped in the air about 108 feet. No resistance. After looking at the video how do you think three floors on fire can remove ten stories of support? To fall like it did there must be NO resistance to the building falling for roughly ten floors.
University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7’s Collapse on 9/11
On March 25, 2020, researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks issued the final report of a four-year computer modeling study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.
Contrary to the conclusions of NIST, the UAF research team found that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was caused not by fires but by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7
The University of Alaska Study is invalid on it’s face. It failed to include damage to the building which has come to light since the NIST report. Professor Hulsey was advised of the damage long before publishing his report, but ignored it. Interestingly, visual manifestation of the damage is clearly evident in the video you posted ( http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 ), and is likewise ignored by virtually every AE911 and UA Fairbanks proponent. Note the early motion of the perimeter frame. Hulsey’s model failed to include that motion, so in the words of Roland Angle, an engineer speaking for AE911Truth, his model cannot be used to explain collapse; explanatory video here: https://youtu.be/rst-x0OffAI