The 9/11 Smoking Gun – WTC7

On 9/11/2001, two planes struck two towers, which collapsed shortly thereafter.

The smoking gun is this:

A few hours after WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed, a third tower (WTC7) also collapsed. WTC7 was NOT hit by a plane, and it looked EXACTLY like a controlled demolition, and the entire media have been silent about it.

Watching the video is sufficient. We don’t need any conspiracy theories about how it was demolished, or by whom … or why … in order for us to know the self-evident fact that it was demolished.

The official story denies a controlled demolition; therefore, it is also self-evident that the official story is a lie. The entire mainstream media have been silent about WTC 7, and thus it is also self-evident that the mainstream media are complicit in the cover-up. The only possible explanation is that the world we live in is the candy coating on the real world. If the perpetrators can pull off 9/11, blame it on some stooges, and keep it all out of the media, then they can get away with just about anything.

After more than five years of delay, the official story on WTC7 was that burning office material in the few isolated fires we saw was that what caused the collapse. However, it is physically impossible that burning office materials could have caused a complete collapse of WTC7, and it is so ludicrous as to be an intentional cover-up, to claim that it could have caused a collapse that looked exactly like a controlled demolition.

Any believable explanation would have to explain why WTC7 collapsed so symmetrically and completely and at free fall speed (the time it would take for a ball dropped from the top to hit the ground). Any believable explanation would therefore have to explain why WTC7 collapsed as if every structural connection in it were cut at the same instant.

Even if all 9/11 conspiracy theories were wrong, it would still be self-evident that the official story is also wrong; therefore, it is also self-evident that the government, the media, and both political parties cannot be trusted because the most innocent possible interpretation is that not one of them trust their own ability to think independently.

To be fair, almost no one trusts their own ability to think independently. How better can we honor the victims of 9/11 than to wake up, shed our mystical faith in authority, get off our knees, and embrace our own ability to think?

Lest anyone lose so much progress and relapse back into denial, let’s consider a little more evidence right away.

I recommend everyone start with the documentary put together for us by Architects and Engineers for Truth. It is packed with evidence and expert testimony. Like me, they also don’t speculate on conspiracy theories about how, who, or why. They just add expert testimony to the self-evident fact that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. In it you will see that many experts agreethe official story cannot be true.

We have already examined enough evidence to be certain that the official story cannot be true because it is self-evident that WTC 7 was some form of controlled demolition. Therefore, I am reluctant to distract anyone with additional evidence because how could we possibly make the case any stronger? For example, we don’t need to know anything about how it was demolished to know that it was demolished. However, one additional piece of evidence that is pretty amazing is when Larry Silverstein (the owner) sure sounded like he was admitting a controlled demolition in 2002. The 2002 confession was pretty clear, but the 2004 confession, which never aired, was even more clear – and yet, the media ignored these and other confessions. At the lower levels of the media, they don’t trust their own ability to think independently, and at the top levels …

John Kerry said that he did not know about Larry Silverstein’s statement, but that he did know WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition because of safety concerns.

Unlike the official story of a collapse by office fire, the confessions by the owners and John Kerry ware consistent with the self-evident fact that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. However, the official story is safe; whereas, the confessions cannot be propagated because they could not be true without conspiracy. For example, How is it that WTC7 was already wired for demolition on 9/11? On the other hand, If WTC7 were wired within just a couple of hours, then how was such a miraculous operation kept secret, and why has it been kept secret – even after multiple confessions? Why did the entire media conspire to ignore the confessions – just like they conspired to ignore the controlled demolition?

Consider Larry Silverstein’s additional admission that he had been at the top of one of the towers having breakfast with his tenants until noon every day since July, 26th – every day except September 11th.

On a personal note, pretty much no one learned that tower 7 collapsed at first, and when I learned about it in 2006, the first thing I had to admit was that the entire mainstream media were intentionally misleading me beyond their usual pro-government politically correct bias. I also had to admit that the leaders of the Democrats and Republicans were working together to intentionally mislead me.

Since 9/11, I had always thought that the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 were not only highly improbable, but were also very unnatural looking. Nevertheless, my estimate that there was a .5% chance that they could have collapsed like they did was enough that I did not suspect conspiracy, and so I looked into it no further and was unaware of 9/11 truthers until the South Park episode in 2006 making fun of truthers, and this made me curious.

Since 2006, in spite of hundreds of hours of research and a degree in engineering, I have still found no likely explanation to date from official sources; whereas, I have found much evidence of conspiracy. In fact, in 2006 there was still no official story on WTC7.

It has been my experience with the topic of 9/11 that, more than most conspiracies, the official explanations, such as the one in Popular Mechanics, are so full of mistakes, logical fallacies, and pettiness that they have made me more suspicious – not less; and attempts by laymen to defend the official story are so full of mistakes, logical fallacies, and pettiness that they too have made me more suspicious. Unlike most conspiracies, just about every attempt I have seen by both laymen and the media to discredit critics of the official 9/11 story reveal that those laymen and media don’t even know the official story, which proves they are just trying to conform!

How better can we honor the victims of 9/11 than to wake up, shed our mystical faith in authority, get off our knees, and embrace our own ability to think?


(update 2013) In 2013 at a posh hotel in Seattle, I encountered a couple from Portland who owned a small structural analysis consulting company. They had had a few drinks and were loose with their talk. When I asked if they could explain how WTC 7 collapsed, they said they don’t already know, but they bragged that for the right price they can always fabricate any plausible sounding explanation necessary to satisfy the highest bidder! They implied how that is just how the world it works, and how that has been the secret of their success!

(update 2014) I still encounter educated professionals who don’t know that a third tower fell on 9/11, which reminds me of the second proof of conspiracy: Why did the media bury the existence of the third tower, and why are none of them curious given that controlled demolition is self-evident and thus the official story cannot be true?


  • Kaysersoze5 says:

    So what are you suggesting?

    I understand from the interview with Silverstein that they (being the Fire Department) had to pull the building in order to prevent more dead firefighters. Sounds logical to me without all the conspiracy stuff.

  • Jim says:

    The official explanation, which quietly came out several years later, was that the collapse of WTC7 was caused by an office fire; whereas, it was obviously a controlled demolition instead. Was that not clear? Don't you think it would be a good idea to figure out why they are lying?

  • Kaysersoze5 says:

    Well, maybe because of big lawsuits. I am just guessing here. But I dont think the conspiracy theory is very plausible.

    I think you are writing some good stuff on your blog but this conspiracy thinking discredit you a little bit though.

    Why do you think this was never totally disclosed then (if this is the case anyway)?

  • Jim says:

    I think certain facts like the collapse of WTC7 are the kind of slap in the face necessary to wake most people; whereas, there is little additional need to speculate on the participants and motives. It is better to be honest, and admit that we cannot be as sure about the participants and motives. Once people understand that the government and the media would lie about something like 9/11, then honest change becomes possible.

  • Jim says:

    I'm leaving the more speculative conclusions for others to make. I am merely trying to motivate others to see the need to investigate further because they have been lied to by the government and the media, and to develop confidence in their own ability to reason.

  • Kaysersoze5 says:

    Ok, fair enough. But there are so many ludicrous conspiracy theories about 9/11 that you questioning WTC7, could easily result in people putting you in the same category if you dont make your motive clear as you now have done in your comments..

  • Anonymous says:

    Conspiracy theory explanations and counterarguments are so full of mistakes, logical fallacies, and pettiness that they have made me more suspicious – not less; and attempts by laymen to defend the conspiracy theory are so full of mistakes, logical fallacies, and pettiness that they too have made me more suspicious. In fact, most laymen who attempt to defend the conspiracy story don’t even know the conspiracy story!

    See how that works?

  • Jim says:

    Not really. Although the mirror test is a valuable tool, you did not apply it correctly.

    Whereas, my article is critical of one theory (the official story), you are critical of all conspiracy theories.
    Whereas, in full context, my particular statement was just my specific personal experiences in this case, you are making a blanket statement without claiming the experiences to back it up.
    Whereas, I was limiting my claims to self-evident facts, you are implying that I was speculating on conspiracy theories (e.g. the how and why).

    To get to the kind of world you want to live in, a more constructive approach would be to trust you own ability to think for yourself. If everyone were telling you the grass has turned blue and the sky has turned green, and you looked out the window and saw that it was not true …

  • Kanakaken says:

    I cannot understand how it is that when basic facts are presented, some people don't see them. Perhaps they don't want to. The Government's official story on WTC7 is that it fell down because of an internal fire even though the only fires noted were spot fires on the outside of the building. When the collapse of WTC7 is viewed on video by people involved in the demolition industry, NONE of them say it was a natural fall for a 47 story building, in fact they all say it was a controlled demolition, the 'crimp' in the centre of the building being the evidential stamp. There is absolutely NO doubt the building was demolished. If that is the case, then the government's official story is a lie. If the Government lied about that, they lied about everything else as well.

  • Kanakaken says:

    Something else to consider. Nobody can deny that the integrity of buildings today are far superior to those built 60 or more years ago. In July 1945 a US Army B52 Bomber crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State building killing 3 crew and 11 others in the building. The fire was extinguished in 40 minutes, the building was shut down but reopened the following Monday, and it still stands! WTC2 was struck at the 80th floor and collapsed in 56 minutes.

  • Anonymous says:

    WTC7 actually reached free fall speed. That means there was no resistance to the fall from the lower floors. ALL the support structure must have been destroyed in the initial blast.

    Moreover, it collapsed simultaneuosly. The fire damage was in one end of the building. Why then did the other end collapse at EXACTLY the same time, within milliseconds.

    And you know, if WTC7 was demolished, then the other towers were too.

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

  • Think about what you just said here. "They had to pull the building in order to prevent more dead firefighters." Since when are all buildings pre-rigged for demolition, you know, just in case firefighters, who perhaps could just not go in the building, might die?

  • Jim says:

    To be fair to Kaysersoze5, at that time, I had not made my point as clearly as I could have.

  • Chris K says:

    It takes more than a morning to set up a building to be "PULLED." WTC7 was rigged to come down, days or weeks or months before 9/11.
    As were the other two towers.

  • Anonymous says:

    Exactly. I personally think another plane was supposed to hit WTC7 but was aborted (93?) And since the building sustained a fair amount of damage, they had to drop the building anyway because the explosives would have been found during repair.

  • Jim says:

    @Kanakaken, It was not a B-52 that hit the Empire State Building. It was a B-25, which is a much smaller and lighter plane than a B-52 or a 767. It was also traveling at a much slower speed.

  • Anonymous says:

    Common sense tells you that a collapsed building would crush and encapsulate bodies and office equipment and furniture. Yet no one clearing the debris from WTC 1 & 2, found any of that. Neither bodies nor wrecked equipment or furniture. WHY?

    It had all been blown to smithereens by the controlled demolition explosions

  • Unknown says:

    That's precisely why I came to the conclusion that the official story was false. I was waiting for the photos of bodies and crushed desk and file cabinets in the debris. Yet everyone reported that nothing of the kind was found.

  • Unknown says:

    Each of the other Towers reached free fall speeds as well. Watch the videos of their collapse and you can pick out the secondary explosions on various floors, as well. There was absolutely no resistance from the remaining e undamaged structural components to the collapse of the upper floors. Damning stuff by itself. Then listen to the fire fighters who responded, talking about hearing a series of explosions; as one firefighter said "…it was almost like a controlled demolition!"

  • johnny mars says:

    Only morons still believe the “official government conspiracy theory.”

    This guy has the balls to actually names names: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOq-LbQ4erM

    • Jim says:

      He sounds good, but I have met him in person and he was evasive. I was unimpressed.

      I had previously found that he didn’t provide links to back up his work in the articles I read.

      I asked him in person if anyone had verified that the well known photo of the cut beam at ground zero that he and Jim Marrs were both using that day had not simply been cut by the clean up team. He said he didn’t think anyone had tried to verify it! He also seemed to think it was an irrelevant question! Now imagine if the government came out with proof that the beam was cut by the clean up team. Millions of people who used that evidence would look like fools. It smells like a set up.

  • >