An almost unbelievably absurd and weak hit piece against Jesse Ventura’s contention that WTC 7 was deliberately imploded on 9/11 compares a 4-story church that was a stone’s throw away from the twin towers with a 47-story skyscraper that was nearly 400 feet away.
Responding to the former Minnesota Governor’s recent appearance on Fox News, CHQR radio host Rob Breakenridge writes, "Ventura obviously thinks this sounds very clever, but there’s one point on which he’s factually incorrect: it was more than three buildings. The twin towers (1WTC & 2WTC) obviously collapsed, as did 7WTC - the three buildings Ventura cites. What he neglects to mention is that 3WTC (Marriott Hotel) and St. Nick’s Cathedral also collapsed that day."
Let’s start with Breakenridge’s absurd example of St. Nicholas Church as a building that was destroyed by the twin towers’ collapse on 9/11.
This is a picture of the 4-story Church building. It stands in the shadow of the 1362-foot tall south tower. To compare this with a gigantic 576-foot tall skyscraper that would be the tallest building in most major cities and stands a full 355 feet away from the north tower is patently ludicrous.
The humble church building is like an ant compared to the colossal south tower, of course it would have been crushed when the south tower collapsed. How on earth can Breakenridge draw a parallel between this tiny building and a gigantic skyscraper that was nearly half as tall as the twin towers?
The 47-story WTC 7 following the collapse of the twin towers. Somewhat different to the 4-story St. Nicholas Church.
Breakenridge then cites WTC 4, 5 and 6 as buildings that were destroyed and "had to be brought down manually or otherwise they, too, would have collapsed."
The difference between all these buildings and WTC 7 was that they were all closer to the twin towers than Building 7 and none of them collapsed in a 7-second implosion style demolition.
All were pelted by debris and essentially hollowed out, but their basic foundation remained in place and they did not fall to the ground at the speed of gravity within 7 seconds. All the buildings remained standing until they were demolished weeks later.
In comparison, WTC had suffered little debris damage because it stood a full 355 feet away from the north tower and yet it imploded into its own footprint in an instant.
Breakenridge cites World Trade Center Building 3 (pictured above), known publicly as the 22-story Marriott Hotel, which was positioned between the twin towers. The building was sliced in half during the collapse of WTC 2, yet it did not experience uniform collapse either vertically or horizontally.
WTC 3 was in the middle of the WTC towers, whereas Building 7 was 355 feet away. WTC 3 was less than half the height of WTC 7 and yet WTC 7 experienced a full implosion-style collapse within 7 seconds, while the foundation of WTC 3 survived.
In the map above you can see that WTC 3 is sandwiched in-between the twin towers, whereas WTC 7 is more than a block away from the north tower.
A comparison between WTC 3 and WTC 7, even taking into account the fact that WTC 3 was not completely destroyed despite taking the brunt of both twin towers whereas WTC 7 was imploded, is clearly another ridiculous parallel to draw.
Breakenridge then attempts to back up his preposterous argument by citing "peer-reviewed papers on the collapse" of the buildings, including the 10,000 page NIST report.
This is probably news to Breakenridge, but NIST itself has completely failed to address the cause of WTC 7’s collapse and has not yet issued a final report on the reason for the 7-second implosion. In addition, NIST itself admits that the debris from the twin towers was not the cause of the collapse.
Breakenridge also cites, "The study by a Cambridge University engineer (which) demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total."
First of all, Breakenridge starts out talking about Building 7 but then suddenly switches to citing reports about the collapse of the twin towers, which is bizarre but unsurprising considering the laughable amateurish nature of his article.
Furthermore, the alleged Cambridge University report has been completely debunked because its conclusions violate fundamental laws of physics.
The report, "essentially claims that a falling body can fall through the path of most resistance. Such a claim is ludicrous and defies all logic or honest scientific integrity," according to J A Blacker MSc IMI, who wrote to the university demanding the report be corrected.
Mr Blacker’s request also challenges the claim that "All the floors offered the same flimsy resistance," when in fact, "each had different construction characteristics, the lower floor core columns were over double the thickness compared to the upper floors."
"The Seffen paper claims that burning jet fuel in air can weaken ALL the steel girders evenly (hence symmetrical collapse due to gravity of all columns perfectly), yet both ends of these outer and inner massive columns were outside the fire zone to differing degrees hence heat would have conducted up and down very efficiently at different rates, and many columns were not even subjected to any significant fire. Are we really expected to believe that fire can weaken steel evenly despite the core columns conducting heat efficiently at varying rates away from varied regions of temperature?" concludes Blacker.
Breakenridge’s pathetic attempt to smear Jesse Ventura is atypical of the hit pieces against the 9/11 truth movement that we’ve become accustomed to - setting up straw man arguments, making comparisons between completely anathema scenarios, and using arguments that violate the very basic laws of physics.