Fox News: much more open-minded about explosive devices bringing down 7 World Trade

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Such as who, specifically? Hayden says he was that the WTC 7 would come down by some engineer he refuses to name, and plenty of other people were told the same; but who actually knew, and how could anyone rightly know when no high-rise building in history had ever been felled by fires?

Dude, wtf are you talking about? There are TONS of quotes from people on the ground that they moved crews, and by standers back because they thought the building was going to come down.

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department


"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers


"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan


"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was,but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post.
We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_uojEXJEEE

Donald Rumsfeld letting it slip that flight 93 was shot down. Not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things... but there's no reason to lie about things lest you make people wonder just how much the government lies about.

Give me a few minutes and maybe I'll find Bill Clinton quoted in questioning whether or not we landed on the moon since in his 8 years in office, he saw things that would make you wonder as much.

So I guess the US has 57 states, because when someone says something recorded live and slips up it alters reality and makes it true right?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
They are going to use wireless detonators?

To easy for an accidental trigger. Also, how many would be needed and whre would such be obtained. Records would exist up the wazoo.

Well, Kyle's premise is that the folks providing the demo substance (Nano thermate/thermite) would also provide the means to detonate it... which is reasonable to presume regardless of the criminality that would extend to half the government and their suppliers and theorists who'd be involved in a before the fact conspiracy... (charged with the same crime as the actual doers)

My brilliant Grandson advises me that the prisions would be filled with the innocent of that day for their protection from the free society of the guilty roaming about unfettered to pursue their agenda...
 
Last edited:

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Have I ever mentioned that I think militant truthers are morons?

Gosh, I don't think they are morons or that anti truthers are liars... hehehehhe

I think folks find anomalies and contort them into what ever suits the fancy that makes them feel good.. It is a psychological phenomenon that will always be with us. That there ARE issues of major import perpetrated by leaders don't help but rather, fuel those fires... Folks can always point to something and say "see... they did it there so they did it here"...

In Economic Theory folks of great intellect can argue the facts before them are caused by a myriad of things and never agree to what they are... It is ok to do that cuz they are brilliant thinkers, I'm told. I think they are driven by the need to be unique at times and note worthy and be seen as the current guru on the topic... Someone has to be wrong though... Same here...
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
So I guess the US has 57 states, because when someone says something recorded live and slips up it alters reality and makes it true right?

It may have been shot down but then all the phone calls and the cockpit tapes are fabricated that occur after a shoot down event.

I'd have ordered it shot down IF I were in control. And exactly in the locale where it is said to have impacted the ground... And I'd make that clear. That is exactly what or why we send fighter aircraft up according my thinking... to get the plane's objectives understood, altered or terminated...
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
It may have been shot down but then all the phone calls and the cockpit tapes are fabricated that occur after a shoot down event.

I'd have ordered it shot down IF I were in control. And exactly in the locale where it is said to have impacted the ground... And I'd make that clear. That is exactly what or why we send fighter aircraft up according my thinking... to get the plane's objectives understood, altered or terminated...

The whole problem with it being shot down is the many that saw it hit the ground as it was flying very low, and not a one I heard said anything about it smoking, or being damaged as it would be if it were shot down. Also the cockpit recorders give no indication that the terrorist thought they were being shot at, and none of the calls indicate that either.

Kelly Leverknight was watching news of the attacks when she heard the plane. "I heard the plane going over and I went out the front door and I saw the plane going down. It was headed toward the school, which panicked me, because all three of my kids were there. Then you heard the explosion and felt the blast and saw the fire and smoke."[66] Another witness, Eric Peterson, looked up when he heard the plane, "It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets. You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side. There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud."[67] Val McClatchey had been watching footage of the attacks when she heard the plane. She saw it briefly, then heard the impact. The crash knocked out the electricity and phones. McClatchey grabbed her camera and took the only known picture of the smoke cloud from the explosion.[68][69]
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
The whole problem with it being shot down is the many that saw it hit the ground as it was flying very low, and not a one I heard said anything about it smoking, or being damaged as it would be if it were shot down. Also the cockpit recorders give no indication that the terrorist thought they were being shot at, and none of the calls indicate that either.

I base the potential on the second aircraft bits found about a mile or so away... as the crow flies... Not too sure it is related but I don't know otherwise either.

I agree about the recordings not supporting a shoot down.. I also agree the visual evidence from witnesses does not either.

The biggest reason I don't think a shoot down occurred is because it would have caused a situation where the aircraft likely would not have powered into earth... but rather, would have arrived at impact under the influence of terminal velocity and result in plane parts on the surface of the impact site quite visible and large..
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
IF you can agree that a partial collapse of something due to fire is possible then consider the cantilever bit as a partial collapse and the bits above refused to sit there and defy logic...
A partial collapse on one side of the building resultin in the building comming straight down rather than tipping over in the direction of that partial collapse defies logic.

Don't for a moment presume that anyone in the lower echelons of the FDNY would conspire to cover up because their overlords commanded them to...
I've never presumed anything of the sort, neither in regard to the FDNY or NYPD. Rather, I'm simply suggesting that they were misdirected, convinced there was no need to look for evidence of demolition and hence weren't looking for anything of the sort.

They are going to use wireless detonators?

To easy for an accidental trigger.
Nonsense.

Also, how many would be needed and whre would such be obtained.
Likely more than a few, but there's far more than a few ways to obtain devices suitable for such purposes. For instance, the wireless portion of such detonators could be something as simple as a pager, set only to trigger when a certain code is received, easily avoiding the issue of accidental detonation.

Records would exist up the wazoo.
Perhaps such records do exist, but like records of insider trading based on foreknowledge of the attacks existed were disappeared down the memory hole of the official story. Besides, considering the fact that the official investigation didn't even bother to test for explosive residues in the dust, they can't rightly have been expected to have looked for records of possible destinations.

Regarding this bit... IF you listen to the audio comments and read the transcripts many of the fire chiefs and deputy chiefs while looking at the damage caused to the South face at the edge by the North Tower collapse felt that building was in danger from that alone.
I've looked, and that's not what I've found. For instance, see what John quoted:

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center..."- Richard Banaciski

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might... collapse..."- Chief Cruthers

"...they thought 7 was going to collapse" - Lieutenant William Ryan
That's the words of people having been told the building that building might come down, not people coming to that concluding from what they saw of the building themselves. From what I've seen, most people didn't come to that concluding themselves, but rather were told, as this paper documents.

Well, Kyle's premise is that the folks providing the demo substance (Nano thermate/thermite) would also provide the means to detonate it...
Nonsense, I've never made a claim one way or another on that, and am in no position to do so.
 
Last edited:

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally Posted by LunarRay
IF you can agree that a partial collapse of something due to fire is possible then consider the cantilever bit as a partial collapse and the bits above refused to sit there and defy logic...
A partial collapse on one side of the building resultin in the building comming straight down rather than tipping over in the direction of that partial collapse defies logic.

It would defy logic IF the dynamics were there to force that and it did not occur.
The load transferred to the adjacent columns and etc. is what apparently happened given it didn't do that - fall over toward the the South West corner.

In general, I think there were quite a few buildings in about that complex that eventually had to be demolished as the result of damage sustained from the collapse of the Towers. There IS evidence from credible sources at the scene that indicated the FDNY intended to either allow the WTC 7 to collapse and or bring it down if it came to that... They had no life loss issue with 7 but its condition made recovery efforts problematic at best regarding the Tower collapses where they had the potential to save lives.

The only issues remaining for me (including the evacuation of the Command Bunker on the 23rd floor and the residual heat under the building well after collapse) that seem anomalous are the dust stuff, the uniform acceleration of the building, and just when did stuff in 7 start to blow up... ie; the statements of the two people in the building, presumably and per their statements, being part of an event of some sort before the tower 2 collapse and I suppose when did the fires start and how.

Edit: I'm presuming that the dust stuff caused the steel to become 'swiss cheese' like... So they are not two issues but one as I view it. I further presume the paper published on the topic by Harrit, et. al., is still uncontested.
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
I remember sitting around with the fam watching that crap...Geraldo's star began to fall immediately thereafter..

haha. that was actually when his "star" began. Capone's vault was his first solo TV gig.

:D
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
A partial collapse on one side of the building resultin in the building comming straight down rather than tipping over in the direction of that partial collapse defies logic.

No it doesn't. In one scenario maybe, but not in others.

I've never presumed anything of the sort, neither in regard to the FDNY or NYPD. Rather, I'm simply suggesting that they were misdirected, convinced there was no need to look for evidence of demolition and hence weren't looking for anything of the sort.

Ridiculous. Thousands of people milling through the rubble someone would have found, and turned in SOMETHING, anything ...they didn't.

Nonsense.

You are full of it.

Likely more than a few, but there's far more than a few ways to obtain devices suitable for such purposes. For instance, the wireless portion of such detonators could be something as simple as a pager, set only to trigger when a certain code is received, easily avoiding the issue of accidental detonation.

So yea, they just sourced all these high tech remote detonators, and mystery explosives from a few different places :rolleye:

Perhaps such records do exist, but like records of insider trading based on foreknowledge of the attacks existed were disappeared down the memory hole of the official story. Besides, considering the fact that the official investigation didn't even bother to test for explosive residues in the dust, they can't rightly have been expected to have looked for records of possible destinations.

There's no records to find because there were no demolitions.

I've looked, and that's not what I've found. For instance, see what John quoted:

Than you haven't looked very hard because there are pictures taken, video, and transcripts of people that saw the damage, and made their conclusions.

That's the words of people having been told the building that building might come down, not people coming to that concluding from what they saw of the building themselves. From what I've seen, most people didn't come to that concluding themselves, but rather were told, as this paper documents.

Don't take half quotes out of context, most all those are from people that were there, and saw the damage first hand.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Thousands of people milling through the rubble someone would have found, and turned in SOMETHING, anything ...they didn't.
Sure, like the harddrives containing evidence of insider trading based foreknowledge of the attacks didn't turn up either, eh? :\

You're just walling in denial here, and the same goes for the rest of your arguments.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Sure, like the harddrives containing evidence of insider trading based foreknowledge of the attacks didn't turn up either, eh? :\

You're just walling in denial here, and the same goes for the rest of your arguments.

September 6th, 2001 is a particularly interesting day in the Put/Call Options market all pointing toward stock value changes related to who'd win or lose in the event of a Terrorist Attack. Specifically AMR and UAL being well outside the statistical norm AND being the airlines involved is persuasive... And, supports the notion that some folks had foreknowledge of a pending event and acted accordingly. The question is; who are those 'some folks'.
It seems to me, IF the above is true, and they are not informed by some means via Al Qaeda advisories then they might be related to US Intelligence gathering folks... Or both.
IIRC, 2.5 million remained unclaimed in this windfall... It sure is a juicy bit of circumstantial evidence that someone got cold feet... assuming they were alive to collect on their 'bet'.

But it don't really link itself to WTC 7s demise to my thinking.
 
Last edited:

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I really think that WTC 7 ought to be considered similar to WTC 3,4,5 and 6 along with the other buildings that had to be torn down as part of the collateral damage from the attacks on the towers.
I think it a poor tactic to point to the 'free fall' collapse portion of 7s demise as a proof of demolition... If that fails for the want of evidence that points only toward an Alternate Conspiracy the entire program looses traction.

Folks like Gage and Griffin and Jones, the Texan are no different from the Jimmy Swaggart's... they have a different message but tend to live off the proceeds of folks who want to be fed more and more of the message they believe in... I believe in God but I'd no more send a check to Swaggart or the Catholic Church than I would to Gage if I believed as strongly in his message... nor would I buy Griffin's books. Fox news is no different really... they make their money off an intermediate but end of day they exist cuz folks want them to. They have an audience.

I think there are three kinds of folks in most of these things...
Folks blinded by belief in their government
Folks blinded by disbelief in their government
And, Rational folks who need evidence that persuades in order to join either of the two above and actually subjects the evidence to logical scrutiny before accepting it to be true. These folks don't usually point at some element not related to bolster some other aspect... each bit of evidence rises or falls on its own merit.

Put options does not answer what is actually in the WTC dust... Science does.
The most telling bit in WTC 7 that makes not one bit of sense to me is having a plethora of foreknowledge of its immanent collapse and then to argue it was demo'd and disregard anything that is contained in the evidence that time and again points to a building in trouble or construe it out of its context to support a demo'd collapse. FDNY did have their Special Operations folks at the site surveying the building regarding its stability (Per Hayden) contrary to what Graeme MacQueen might advocate.
I find Hayden credible when he says some other engineer opines the building will collapse...
If there was no evidence regarding foreknowledge then ok all the bits are seen in a different light and we'd probably have more FDNY deaths.
IMHO!
 
Last edited:

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
But it don't really link itself to WTC 7s demise to my thinking.
The evidence of insider trading is linked to the issue of how evidence which pointed to parties other than al Qaeda being involved in the attacks was disappeared down the memory hole by the official investigation, and as such refutes John's suggestion that evidence of foul play in WTC 7's demise would've been turned up by the official investigation.

I really think that WTC 7 ought to be considered similar to WTC 3,4,5 and 6 along with the other buildings that had to be torn down...
To do that one has to ignore the fact that unlike WTC 7; those buildings had to be torn down, and nobody predicted otherwise.

I think it a poor tactic to point to the 'free fall' collapse portion of 7s demise as a proof of demolition... If that fails for the want of evidence that points only toward an Alternate Conspiracy the entire program looses traction.
WTC 7's free fall is irrefutable proof of demolition, the evidence is all over the place and isn't going anywhere. You're just wallowing in denial of that evidence with your argument about tactics.

FDNY did have their Special Operations folks at the site surveying the building regarding its stability (Per Hayden) contrary to what Graeme MacQueen might advocate.
MacQueen didn't suggest otherwose.

I find Hayden credible when he says some other engineer opines the building will collapse...
IMHO!
So do I, and I've never said anything to suggest otherwise. Unfortunately, it seems you are intent on arguing strawman rather than acknowledging what I actually have said. :\
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Sure, like the harddrives containing evidence of insider trading based foreknowledge of the attacks didn't turn up either, eh? :\

You're just walling in denial here, and the same goes for the rest of your arguments.

There's nothing to deny. I've inspected demo sites, there is literally thousands of pieces of unexploded ordnance, ignition system, det cord, not too mention plain, easy to see evidence of a pressure event.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
WTC 7's free fall is irrefutable proof of demolition, the evidence is all over the place and isn't going anywhere.

No, it's not you idiot, physical proof of demolitions is irrefutable proof of demolitions, and you, nor anyone else has found any.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Such as who, specifically? Hayden says he was that the WTC 7 would come down by some engineer he refuses to name, and plenty of other people were told the same; but who actually knew, and how could anyone rightly know when no high-rise building in history had ever been felled by fires?

This is the most specious argument concerning WTC 7.

Basically what you're arguing is that someone perpetrated the most complicated and successful cover-up ever, leaving absolutely no traces of any of the nefarious devices used to destroy the building, but then fucked up by telling people? Are you kidding me?

Not to mention the fact that if this was truly a plan, one of the most sophisticated plots ever, no organizer would make the official story be that the building collapsed from fires. Think about it, they have total control of the apparent reason for the collapse, so they could have gone with: another plane, a car bomb, a suicide bomber, acid rain, a nuclear weapon, or even a giant lizard and ALL of them would have been more "plausible" than the way in which WTC 7 collapsed.

That's what makes these conspiracy theories ridiculous. You assume that the people that perpetrated 9/11 constructed the most elaborate plan ever and executed it perfectly while simultaneously assuming that they're dumb as bricks because they left such glaring "evidence" as WTC 7 and then told people about their perfectly executed plan.
 
Last edited:

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
I've inspected demo sites, there is literally thousands of pieces of unexploded ordnance, ignition system, det cord, not too mention plain, easy to see evidence of a pressure event.
The many videos of explosions around WTC 7, and its free fall are plane easy to see evidence of pressure events, you're just ignoring that evidence because you are wallowing in denial, which is also why you ignore the possibility that other evidence like you mention was disappeared down the same memory hole as the evidence of insider trading based on foreknowledge of the attacks.

Are you kidding me?
No, you're kidding yourself by strawmanning me.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
there's nothing to deny. I've inspected demo sites, there is literally thousands of pieces of unexploded ordnance, ignition system, det cord, not too mention plain, easy to see evidence of a pressure event.

physics

gravity

newtons 3rd law

oooh what, i OWENED you
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
The many videos of explosions around WTC 7, and its free fall are plane easy to see evidence of pressure events, you're just ignoring that evidence because you are wallowing in denial, which is also why you ignore the possibility that other evidence like you mention was disappeared down the same memory hole as the evidence of insider trading based on foreknowledge of the attacks.

The only pressure events you see in any of the videos is the air inside the buildings escaping as they collapse. There are no explosions before the buildings fall, this is plain to everyone except the stupidest Truthers clinging to their misguided lust for conspiracy.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
You're simply in denial of the explosions before the buildings came down because they can't be explained in the context of the cavedweller conspiracy theory you so passionately cling to. As for explosions, and ignoring your allusion to what happened the towers since that is off topic in this thread about WTC 7; some pressure events which are most obviously not the air inside the buildings escaping as they collapse can be seen and heard here, and more can be heard here and here.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
You're simply in denial of the explosions before the buildings came down because they can't be explained in the context of the cavedweller conspiracy theory you so passionately cling to. As for explosions, and ignoring your allusion to what happened the towers since that is off topic in this thread about WTC 7; some pressure events which are most obviously not the air inside the buildings escaping as they collapse can be seen and heard here, and more can be heard here and here.

You are like a caveman afraid of the thunder and lightening, making up stories of men in the sky to explain what you don't understand.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
One assertion propounded by the Alternate Conspiracy Theories is that WTC 7 was laden with explosives before the attack on the Towers. Let's examine that.

IF true and they were lit off during the attack(s) time interval there is no visible evidence to the exterior during the rest of the day and the building continued to stand. There were folks in the nearby Verizon building and the US Post Office building until some time well after that. I presume the sense of hearing was impaired by the events in the towers that might alert folks to explosions....

IF the explosives were lit off during the Towers Collapse time interval there is no visual evidence of this either and ditto the sound of explosions... FDNY and a host of other folks were in that vicinity.

IF the explosives were lit off proximate to the time of WTC 7s collapse then we have a case where the 'raging' fires did not ignite the explosives or their igniters nor were there sounds of explosives heard by the folks standing near that building leading up to the actual time of collapse. Folks did hear and see gas tanks go off and the like but not a building event. From Noon onward they did hear sounds but they were described as creaks and groans. IF anyone thinks that building was not ablaze on all floors at say 5 pm then,... well .... I think the evidence is clear on that.
But, this scenario is the most insane part... Why detonate explosives at 5pm assuming they'd still exist in the fires and then use terrorist plane attacks as the foundation for the Terrorist Conspiracy?

In photo and video evidence one can determine time of day by the shadows cast (Just to put in context when events were recorded or photographed).

It just don't make sense to call WTC 7 a controlled demolition no matter how one twists the evidence or lack of it.

I think it quite likely that the interior support system gave out probably at the cantilever structures and at some point the exterior could not carry load and down it came... and did so in uniform acceleration cuz the interior was preceding the exterior down.