OKC & WTC-7 - The Case
For Controlled Demolitions

By Douglas Herman
Exclusive to

"Numerous firemen were telling me that they heard numerous secondary explosions all over the building - these guys are seasoned firefighting professionals - a lot of them have military backgrounds and they're not stupid." -- Major Michael McCormack, WTC first responder.
Those who take the word of the controlled media, are soon controlled and their country demolished.
What exactly happened on September 11, 2001? Are we Americans less than patriotic, less than civic-minded, if we continue to ask questions of government officials regarding questionable occurrences and suspicious, hard-to-explain happenings?
We have all watched controlled demolitions on television. The buildings slowly tremble before pancaking down into a pile of dust and rubble. Really, the only way to knock a well-built building down today is to strike it with a powerful bomb, rig internal explosives or witness a powerful earthquake.
So, how exactly did WTC-7 fall? According to the government explanation (parroted by the controlled media), severe yet cosmetic damage and several suspicious room fires caused this 47 story US government building to weaken and then collapse at near freefall speed.
Pancake Theory Exploded
Ask any structural engineer this theoretical question: In a so-called pancake collapse of a tall steel skyscraper (theoretical because it had never happened before or since), would ejected material travel more than 350 feet horizontally from the exact moment of initial collapse, mimicing a volcanic eruption? Because that is exactly what happened when WTC-1, the North Tower collapsed. Meanwhile, WTC-7 stood 350 feet away from the North Tower. If the tower began to pancake from the 90th floor, would enough material begin to eject and shear substantial portions of WTC-7 to weaken it?
Physically impossible, claim some physicists. The amount of energy required to transform reinforced concrete into dust particles and propel heavy steel beams and aluminum panels 350 feet is greater than the energy of the falling building. Especially in the first few seconds.
To either side of WTC-7 stood the Verizon building and the US Post Office building. Arguably the Verizon building stood much closer to the North Tower, yet neither suffered the extent of damages as WTC-7. Why not? Neither did the two adjacent buildings suffer the rash of suspicious fires--more than a dozen---that ravaged the highly sensitive and secure US government building, WTC-7.
Highly coincidental or highly suspicious?
NIST acknowledged no fires within WTC-7 prior to 12 noon on September 11, 2001. If the Twin Towers had already collapsed over an hour earlier, how did these numerous fires start? Flaming aluminum debris and steel beams ejected 400 feet inside the WTC-7? Or arson fires set by a secret team?
According to NIST:  "From 11:30 am to 2:30 pm: no diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas. No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas. In the east stairwell, smoke was observed around Floors 19 or 20, and signs of a fully involved fire on the south side of Floor 23 were heard--seen---smelled from Floor 22. Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m."
So HOW exactly did all those other fires suddenly ignite? If the Twin Towers had already collapsed more than 90 minutes before, how did ejected aluminum debris and steel beams cause several spontaneous fires? And if ejected material did not cause the fires, what did? "There is no visible debris on the roof," NIST stated. So how did so many fires start inside the building---and why didn't an equal number of fires start inside the Verizon or Post Office building?
Soon the fires inside WTC-7 spread in a most haphazard fashion. Almost as if a pyromaniac, or a team of well-trained arsonists, raced from floor to floor. Fires were reported on floors 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Floors 19, 21, 22 and 29 also reported fires. Who knew the contents of WTC-7 were so combustable. Curious indeed that the Secret Service occupied floors 9 and 10, while the SEC occupied 11 and 12. Curious indeed.
Collapses Followed A Predictable Pattern
Damage to the south face of the trapezoid shape WTC-7 varied from considerable to cosmetic. NIST noted, according to eyewitnesses, only two exterior support columns compromised. However, Deputy Chief Peter Hayden observed: "We were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse." Understandable reasoning, since Hayden had just witnessed two other WTC buildings collapse. "You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
What caused that "visible bulge?" A roomful of burning computers? A floor full of burning SEC records? Recall that the lower floors were not reported ablaze, where a utility substation was located.
Yet if all New York steel skyscrapers now predictably collapse from fires why don't other steel skyscraper around the world also collapse, especially after burning hotter and longer? Do the Spanish build better skyscrapers? Indeed they must, if that skyscraper in Madrid (photograph) that burned forever is any example of their structural superiority. Even more significant, why didn't WTC 7---if indeed structurally damaged along its south face--topple into Vesey Street, like a tree toppling sideways chainsawed by a lumberjack?
The skyscraper in Madrid never fell.  So how did WTC-7?  How did a building engineered to be extremely strong, because it sat atop an electrical substation, how did a strong building that housed the mayors emergency command post, collapse into its own footprint after several room fires and some frontal damage?
Unfortunately, for the plotters who placed those charges, WTC-7 fell perfectly, in a textbook example of controlled demolition. The conspirators performed their work almost too well. Check out the example at for a textbook, controlled demolition.
Murrah Building. Oklahoma City
Take a look at the Murrah Building (photograph),heavily damaged in the explosion allegedly caused by a truckload of fertilizer. Why didn't it collapse? Far more structurally damaged than WTC-7, the building stood until Controlled Demolition "pulled it." (And yes, the demolition guys do indeed use that term. In the TV Documentary, America Rebuilds, a worker clearly states: "We're getting ready to pull building 6").
Murrah may simply have been a practice run for something far more spectacular. The USAF officer who attempted to investigate the debris at Murrah, General Partin, reported that additional demolition charges brought the building down. "This," said General Partin, "is a classic coverup of immense proportions."
And, as in the case of the controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings, where the steel was hastily shipped overseas and recycled, the debris pile in Oklahoma City was hastily buried, hastily hidden.
"Demolition, especially a very hurried demolition, was  essential though to bury the evidence,"  wrote William Jasper. "General Partin visited the landfill outside Oklahoma City recently where the Murrah Building rubble was taken. He had originally thought that the materials would have been laid out for investigation, as one would expect in a case of this importance, involving such great loss of life and such serious national security implications. Far from it. Although much of the debris was initially deposited on the parking lot and the grounds of the Oklahoma County Sheriff's Department Training Center for examination, it is now buried. The landfill is surrounded by a chain link fence and, when the general visited the site, was guarded by security personnel."
Not surprisingly, the same company---Controlled Demolition Inc (CDI) performed clean up chores at both the WTC and Murrah bombsites. And debris that might have indicated clues to a greater conspiracy was hastily removed and destroyed.
Likewise, in the first frantic reports from the destruction at the Murrah building, firemen and policemen on the scene reported finding a "second and third explosive device". The reports of additional bombs would become eerily similar to reports of additional bombs going off in the Twin Towers.  Could all of these brave first responders---those in Oklahoma City and now in New York--- be lying? 
Predictibly, the controlled, corporate US media quashed any investigation into a possible conspiracy. In effect the media was saying to dead and dying firefighters: Keep your mouths shut.
Recently, Major McCormack, the WTC hero who raised the fallen flag on September 11, 2001 was arrested by a SWAT team. A victim of government harassment. Why? McCormack had concluded that around 75% of police, firemen and rescue personnel that he had personally spoken with now believed there was a cover-up pertaining to 9/11 and that many had been threatened that "if they ever open their mouth their pensions are at risk."
Postscript: One puzzling scientific anomaly. If jet fuel only burns at 600-1000 degrees celsius and steel melts at 1500 degrees, how then were pools of molten steel discovered weeks later, far below the street level of WTC? There is no rational explanation. There is NO scientific explanation. Steel may indeed weaken. But a 600-1000 degree fire can NEVER melt a metal that liquifies at a higher temperature. Just one of the many unexplainable scientific facts that NIST, FEMA and MIT will attempt to explain away.
If you let them.
Longtime internet gadfly, Douglas Herman writes uncomfortable scenarios for a discomfiting time. 



This Site Served by TheHostPros