Third 9/11 Tower Couldn’t Have Collapsed From Fire


Everybody knows the classic line of ‘Bush did 9/11’ – it spread from weird corners of the internet into a fairly stale meme.

Yett for some reason, the pervading feeling about the truth behind 9/11 won’t go away and people aren’t happy with the official story.

These people have been vindicated, slightly, with the publication of a new study which proves that WTC7 – the third tower which collapsed – couldn’t have fallen through fire alone.


The official story of WTC7 is, the building was weakened from the collapse of the first two buildings of the World Trade Centre and was then razed to the ground through intense heat.

This is disputed by a team of engineers from the University of Alaska, who believe the collapse of the building couldn’t have been down to fire, reports the Daily Mail.

If the official story is to be believed, then it would make WTC7 the first building in history to collapse purely as a result of a blaze.

The science is shaky at best – steel doesn’t begin to burn until it reaches around 2,800F, and official reports state the steel in WTC7 could only have reached a maximum temperature of around 1,100F.


Dr J. Leroy Hulsey, Chair of the university’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department came to the conclusion the fire couldn’t have caused the downfall of WTC7.

Professor David Ray Griffin, a retired philosopher from Claremont School of Theology in California agrees, saying:

We are led to believe that for the first time in the known universe, a steel-framed, high-rise building was brought down by fire without the aid of explosives or incendiaries.

More clearly miraculous was the precise way in which WTC7 collapsed into its own footprint. This is the kind of free-fall implosion that can only be caused by a world-class demolition company.


Things get even stranger when you consider the reporting ‘error’ the BBC made during their coverage of the event.

While they were reporting on 9/11, they incorrectly reported that WTC7 had collapsed, almost half an hour before it fell.

In the coverage, the news anchor said:

The 47-storey building, situated very close to the World Trade Centre, has also just collapsed. It seems that this was not the result of a new attack, it was because the building had been weakened during the morning attacks.


During a discussion with the correspondent in New York, viewers could clearly see WTC7 erect and undamaged.

To make matters worse, the signal to the correspondent cuts just as she begins explaining the situation in the city.

A statement by the BBC said these errors were merely because of an unprecedented situation.


A spokesman said:

In the chaos and confusion, I am sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate, but at the time, were based on the best information we had.

We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage, for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy.


Understandably, people are not satisfied with this answer and many are taking to protesting the BBC in a stand against the ‘lies’ which have supposedly been sold to the public in regards to 9/11.

Monday will mark 16 years since the incident.