Smoke did Not (Entirely) Come from WTC 7

Best viewed with Internet Explorer.

Defenders of the official story about the collapse of WTC 7 often show photographs of the South side of the building to bolster the claim that raging fires caused building 7 to collapse.

However, the following photos from the North side indicate that the huge quantities of smoke may actually have come from an entirely different building: WTC 5 or 6.












Look at these photos also:












Update # 1: 911Veritas has this: "The quality is not great, but this screensnap was from video taken across the Hudson at the exact moment the building started to collapse.



You can see the amount of smoke added to the plume from where the towers came down + WTC5/6.

Wind is blowing north-easterly."

Update # 2: A few videos pointed out by a reader seem to cloud the issue:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjvlO3PEVz4

A physicist who has viewed these videos states:

"Actually, it may be that the smoke in these videos/photos is rising up the south face of WTC 7 rather than emerging from 7... A video showing the bottom of 7 and ANY FLAMES would be helpful."

Update # 3: Our updated conclusion is that some some did come from Building 7 itself, but that much of the smoke came from buildings 5 and 6. Additional images showing the base of Building 7 will be helpful in determining the respective contributions of smoke from the various buildings.

Bottom Line:

The debate about the smoke is ongoing. However, controlled demolition is the only way to explain the partial evaporation of steel, molten metal, symmetric collapse and free-fall speed seen with building 7.

Specifically, an expert stated about World Trade Center building 7:

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" .

(pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

However, even ignoring the evaporation, the molten metal by itself is very telling. The molten metal under building 7 appears similar to the molten metal under buildings 1 and 2. Molten metal is not generally found under collapsed buildings. Even ignoring the evaporation, the molten metal cannot be explained absent high-explosives.

Additionally, the fact that building 7 collapsed in an extraordinarily symmetric fashion is obvious if you watch any videos of the collapse (like this one, for example) (also, why did the penthouse collapse first?).

And the free-fall speed, possible only in a demolition, has been documented scientifically.

Partial evaporation, molten metal, symmetric collapse, free-fall speed . . . these facts prove demolition. Indeed, two structural engineers at a prestigious Swiss university said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here). And a Dutch demolition expert said that WTC 7 was intentionally imploded.

Credit goes to Robert Moore for the catch.