Written by Paul Joseph Watson,
Infowars.com
Tuesday, 2 November 2011
reposted at Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

UK’s Daily Mail newspaper claims weakening of ‘exterior beams’ caused WTC 7 collapse

Editor’s note: In this incisive article, Infowars journalist Paul Joseph Watson refutes the illogical claims of an overambitious reporter from the UK Daily Mail, who asserts that video footage confirms the destruction of WTC Building 7 by office fires. The Daily Mail article comes in stark contrast to the easily accessible and understandable evidence of the controlled demolition of WTC 7 on the afternoon of 9/11.

Official sources claim that small isolated pockets of fire, like this one, destroyed the mammoth WTC 7 high-rise – dropping it in just seconds into its own footprint

In perhaps one of the weakest and downright laughable 9/11 hit pieces ever published, the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper, not noted for its commitment to accuracy, presents old footage as new to make the ludicrous claim that WTC 7 collapsed due to “exterior” damage caused by fires.

The Mail article claims the video was recently released via a FOIA request and represents new footage, yet virtually identical footage has been available for years, as well as high quality photographs which depict the same scene showing World Trade Center Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, shortly before its collapse in the late afternoon of 9/11.

Official sources claim that small isolated pockets of fire, like this one, destroyed the mammoth WTC 7 high-rise – dropping it in just seconds into its own footprint

The story, written by Meghan Keneally, claims that the “unseen” footage “kills the conspiracy theories” surrounding the collapse of WTC 7 as it shows the building being “consumed by fire.”

“ In accusing “conspiracy theorists” of inventing “wild claims” to substantiate their explanations, Keneally has dreamt up the wildest claim yet – that the structural integrity of modern buildings rests on their exterior beams and window frames. ”

According to Keneally, the clip proves that “Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center.” Presumably, she means the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, which had already collapsed into rubble eight hours before WTC 7 imploded.

In reality, the footage shows nothing that we didn’t already know – specifically that the building was not “consumed by fire,” as has happened in the case of numerous other modern buildings which did not collapse despite being ravaged by flames at every level.

The video clip only serves to confirm the fact that the fires in WTC 7 were relatively limited and by no means had “consumed” the building. The fires were nowhere near powerful enough to threaten the structural integrity of a 47-story building.

However, this is not the most ludicrous aspect of the Mail hit piece. Keneally goes on to bizarrely claim that the footage proves how “the building’s exterior frame could no longer withstand the high temperatures,” and how the “buckling” of these “exterior metal beams,” “led to floors falling in on one another, causing the building to collapse.”

Yes, you read that correctly – Keneally is claiming that the structural integrity of modern buildings – the part that prevents them from collapsing – rests on “exterior metal beams.”

Even NIST’s official investigation of the collapse, which has been challenged by the thousands of professionals who make up Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, was not (stupid) enough to suggest that “exterior” damage can cause a building to collapse in its own footprint. The official report, which Keneally has obviously not even checked, claims that the fires weakened the interior core columns of the building, not the “exterior metal beams”.

If you knew that a building was supported by its “exterior” beams you wouldn’t even dare go inside. The building would never even be approved for construction in the first place.

According to Keneally, the footage shows “how there is legitimacy to the explanation provided by the government’s 9/11 Commission investigation,” which is a strange argument to make considering the fact that the 9/11 Commission didn’t even investigate the collapse of WTC 7.

“ If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event,” then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance? ”

In accusing “conspiracy theorists” of inventing “wild claims” to substantiate their explanations, Keneally has dreamt up the wildest claim yet – that the structural integrity of modern buildings rests on their exterior beams and window frames.

One wonders how such a ham-fisted and inadequate story, which comes across like it was written by a child for a school essay, can make it past the editorial board and into the pages of a major national newspaper.

As we have documented, WTC 7 was a structurally reinforced building that was designed to have floors removed without collapsing.

In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7, NIST claimed that the never before observed “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that simply ignores eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that points to the deliberate demolition of the structure.

There are almost 100 examples of very hot, large, and long lasting fires in high-rises, and not one has collapsed

Link to the rest of the article “Footage That Kills 9/11 Conspiracy Theories” Actually Validates Them