Amazing chutzpah - New 9-11 museum never mentions WTC-7!!!

[georgephillip]

Ummm .... the video on the Internet proves it wasn't a controlled demolition.

Got a link?

Yeah ... the video on the Internet ...



No explosions to bring building 7 down as are visible and audible in an actual controlled demolition. Compare the video above with the one below.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno#t=24[/ame]

Plus, the inside of building 7 collapsed before the outside. Something else which doesn't occur in an actual controlled demolition.

And the last piece of evidence is that truthers are imbeciles.

Your first video shows WTC7 collapsing into its own footprint in about eight seconds, which couldn't happen without controlled demolition. As far as your amateurish comparison with the second video, it tells us nothing about how each of the examples were wired or where the microphones were placed to record the demolitions. WTC7 came down from controlled demolition as an independent investigation into its demise will prove. Maybe you should stop being afraid?

 

[Faun]

Got a link?

Yeah ... the video on the Internet ...



No explosions to bring building 7 down as are visible and audible in an actual controlled demolition. Compare the video above with the one below.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno#t=24[/ame]

Plus, the inside of building 7 collapsed before the outside. Something else which doesn't occur in an actual controlled demolition.

And the last piece of evidence is that truthers are imbeciles.

Your first video shows WTC7 collapsing into its own footprint in about eight seconds, which couldn't happen without controlled demolition. As far as your amateurish comparison with the second video, it tells us nothing about how each of the examples were wired or where the microphones were placed to record the demolitions. WTC7 came down from controlled demolition as an independent investigation into its demise will prove. Maybe you should stop being afraid?

My only fear is being as stupid as those who believe a building was brought down in a controlled demolition despite the lack of explosions which are plainly visible and audible in an actual controlled demolition.

Again, no explosions are heard. You don't need microphones positioned strategically to hear a series of explosions. Had there been any, they would have been clearly heard. You also don't see any. Again, that's why I posted the second video, to compare building 7 against actual controlled demolitions.

And again, in an actual controlled demolition, the entire building collapses in the area where the explosives are detonated. In stark contrast with building 7, the interior of the building began collapsing about 7 seconds before the exterior. That doesn't happen 8 a controlled demolition.

But the biggest piece of evidence against a controlled demolition is plain old common sense. To bring down a building of that size would have required a lot of explosives. Those explosives would have had to be installed prior to 9.11 since no one is going to enter a burning building with explosives, plus it would have required time to properly place them. So the conspiracy goes, I imagine, that someone was planning on bringing building 7 down before 9.11 and used 9.11 as the excuse. That would mean whomever was involved in planting the explosives in building 7 were also involved in the planes hitting the Twin Towers. Well there would have been nothing to gain in bringing down building 7 that wasn't already gained by bringing down the Twin Towers. But that's not where the conspiracy falls apart. The part which fails all common sense is that building 7 burned uncontrollably for about seven hours. The sprinklers failed and fire departments gave up trying to extinguish the blaze at some point. This is where your conspiracy falls apart .... since the explosives would have been placed in the building before 9.11, there's no way in hell those explosives wouldn't have been going off throughout the 7 hours that building burned. In a controlled demolition, all of the explosives used to bring down buildings are done at the same time in order to weaken the structure so the building collapses into its own footprint. If building 7 was loaded with explosives, they would have been going off sporadically throughout the day and pieces of the building would have been collapsing with them. That didn't happen.

 

[daws101]

A majority of the citizens came to that conclusion long ago. But nothing has happened and nothing will happen.

What happened after Bush's invasion of iraq was exposed as a based on a huge lie.? That was far worse than 911 but americans said hell with it.

you should amend that to: "a majority of ill-informed, semiliterate paranoids came to that conclusion long ago."

All you got is calling names. Weak.

false all you've got is the same twoofer bullshit you ass hats have been regurgitating...for 13 years...

 

[georgephillip]

Yeah ... the video on the Internet ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRjJ3t-u9M8

No explosions to bring building 7 down as are visible and audible in an actual controlled demolition. Compare the video above with the one below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno#t=24

Plus, the inside of building 7 collapsed before the outside. Something else which doesn't occur in an actual controlled demolition.

And the last piece of evidence is that truthers are imbeciles.

Your first video shows WTC7 collapsing into its own footprint in about eight seconds, which couldn't happen without controlled demolition. As far as your amateurish comparison with the second video, it tells us nothing about how each of the examples were wired or where the microphones were placed to record the demolitions. WTC7 came down from controlled demolition as an independent investigation into its demise will prove. Maybe you should stop being afraid?

My only fear is being as stupid as those who believe a building was brought down in a controlled demolition despite the lack of explosions which are plainly visible and audible in an actual controlled demolition.

Again, no explosions are heard. You don't need microphones positioned strategically to hear a series of explosions. Had there been any, they would have been clearly heard. You also don't see any. Again, that's why I posted the second video, to compare building 7 against actual controlled demolitions.

And again, in an actual controlled demolition, the entire building collapses in the area where the explosives are detonated. In stark contrast with building 7, the interior of the building began collapsing about 7 seconds before the exterior. That doesn't happen 8 a controlled demolition.

But the biggest piece of evidence against a controlled demolition is plain old common sense. To bring down a building of that size would have required a lot of explosives. Those explosives would have had to be installed prior to 9.11 since no one is going to enter a burning building with explosives, plus it would have required time to properly place them. So the conspiracy goes, I imagine, that someone was planning on bringing building 7 down before 9.11 and used 9.11 as the excuse. That would mean whomever was involved in planting the explosives in building 7 were also involved in the planes hitting the Twin Towers. Well there would have been nothing to gain in bringing down building 7 that wasn't already gained by bringing down the Twin Towers. But that's not where the conspiracy falls apart. The part which fails all common sense is that building 7 burned uncontrollably for about seven hours. The sprinklers failed and fire departments gave up trying to extinguish the blaze at some point. This is where your conspiracy falls apart .... since the explosives would have been placed in the building before 9.11, there's no way in hell those explosives wouldn't have been going off throughout the 7 hours that building burned. In a controlled demolition, all of the explosives used to bring down buildings are done at the same time in order to weaken the structure so the building collapses into its own footprint. If building 7 was loaded with explosives, they would have been going off sporadically throughout the day and pieces of the building would have been collapsing with them. That didn't happen.

EXPLOSIONS were heard and recorded on 911. NIST contrived its study to exclude the possibility of all explosives except for the very loudest. The simple fact of this matter is steel framed skyscrapers don't drop in their footprints without incendiaries being used. Maybe you should stop being afraid of what you don't understand?

https://archive.org/details/AudioEvidenceOfWtcBuilding7Explosion

 

[Faun]

Your first video shows WTC7 collapsing into its own footprint in about eight seconds, which couldn't happen without controlled demolition. As far as your amateurish comparison with the second video, it tells us nothing about how each of the examples were wired or where the microphones were placed to record the demolitions. WTC7 came down from controlled demolition as an independent investigation into its demise will prove. Maybe you should stop being afraid?

My only fear is being as stupid as those who believe a building was brought down in a controlled demolition despite the lack of explosions which are plainly visible and audible in an actual controlled demolition.

Again, no explosions are heard. You don't need microphones positioned strategically to hear a series of explosions. Had there been any, they would have been clearly heard. You also don't see any. Again, that's why I posted the second video, to compare building 7 against actual controlled demolitions.

And again, in an actual controlled demolition, the entire building collapses in the area where the explosives are detonated. In stark contrast with building 7, the interior of the building began collapsing about 7 seconds before the exterior. That doesn't happen 8 a controlled demolition.

But the biggest piece of evidence against a controlled demolition is plain old common sense. To bring down a building of that size would have required a lot of explosives. Those explosives would have had to be installed prior to 9.11 since no one is going to enter a burning building with explosives, plus it would have required time to properly place them. So the conspiracy goes, I imagine, that someone was planning on bringing building 7 down before 9.11 and used 9.11 as the excuse. That would mean whomever was involved in planting the explosives in building 7 were also involved in the planes hitting the Twin Towers. Well there would have been nothing to gain in bringing down building 7 that wasn't already gained by bringing down the Twin Towers. But that's not where the conspiracy falls apart. The part which fails all common sense is that building 7 burned uncontrollably for about seven hours. The sprinklers failed and fire departments gave up trying to extinguish the blaze at some point. This is where your conspiracy falls apart .... since the explosives would have been placed in the building before 9.11, there's no way in hell those explosives wouldn't have been going off throughout the 7 hours that building burned. In a controlled demolition, all of the explosives used to bring down buildings are done at the same time in order to weaken the structure so the building collapses into its own footprint. If building 7 was loaded with explosives, they would have been going off sporadically throughout the day and pieces of the building would have been collapsing with them. That didn't happen.

EXPLOSIONS were heard and recorded on 911. NIST contrived its study to exclude the possibility of all explosives except for the very loudest. The simple fact of this matter is steel framed skyscrapers don't drop in their footprints without incendiaries being used. Maybe you should stop being afraid of what you don't understand?

https://archive.org/details/AudioEvidenceOfWtcBuilding7Explosion

The explosions were not from planted explosives. Had they been, the building would have been coming down in stages throughout the day as those explosions were heard. The building was burning uncontrollably for 7 hours. Had there been planted explosives, the building would have been falling sporadically and not have remained standing after 7 hours.

 

[georgephillip]

My only fear is being as stupid as those who believe a building was brought down in a controlled demolition despite the lack of explosions which are plainly visible and audible in an actual controlled demolition.

Again, no explosions are heard. You don't need microphones positioned strategically to hear a series of explosions. Had there been any, they would have been clearly heard. You also don't see any. Again, that's why I posted the second video, to compare building 7 against actual controlled demolitions.

And again, in an actual controlled demolition, the entire building collapses in the area where the explosives are detonated. In stark contrast with building 7, the interior of the building began collapsing about 7 seconds before the exterior. That doesn't happen 8 a controlled demolition.

But the biggest piece of evidence against a controlled demolition is plain old common sense. To bring down a building of that size would have required a lot of explosives. Those explosives would have had to be installed prior to 9.11 since no one is going to enter a burning building with explosives, plus it would have required time to properly place them. So the conspiracy goes, I imagine, that someone was planning on bringing building 7 down before 9.11 and used 9.11 as the excuse. That would mean whomever was involved in planting the explosives in building 7 were also involved in the planes hitting the Twin Towers. Well there would have been nothing to gain in bringing down building 7 that wasn't already gained by bringing down the Twin Towers. But that's not where the conspiracy falls apart. The part which fails all common sense is that building 7 burned uncontrollably for about seven hours. The sprinklers failed and fire departments gave up trying to extinguish the blaze at some point. This is where your conspiracy falls apart .... since the explosives would have been placed in the building before 9.11, there's no way in hell those explosives wouldn't have been going off throughout the 7 hours that building burned. In a controlled demolition, all of the explosives used to bring down buildings are done at the same time in order to weaken the structure so the building collapses into its own footprint. If building 7 was loaded with explosives, they would have been going off sporadically throughout the day and pieces of the building would have been collapsing with them. That didn't happen.

EXPLOSIONS were heard and recorded on 911. NIST contrived its study to exclude the possibility of all explosives except for the very loudest. The simple fact of this matter is steel framed skyscrapers don't drop in their footprints without incendiaries being used. Maybe you should stop being afraid of what you don't understand?

https://archive.org/details/AudioEvidenceOfWtcBuilding7Explosion

The explosions were not from planted explosives. Had they been, the building would have been coming down in stages throughout the day as those explosions were heard. The building was burning uncontrollably for 7 hours. Had there been planted explosives, the building would have been falling sporadically and not have remained standing after 7 hours.

The building wasn't burning uncontrollably at any point during that day.
Fires were isolated and their temperatures were too low to affect steel in the ways nanothermite would. Why don't you tell us how nanothermite turned up in WTC7 dust samples?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

And again, in an actual controlled demolition, the entire building collapses in the area where the explosives are detonated. In stark contrast with building 7, the interior of the building began collapsing about 7 seconds before the exterior. That doesn't happen 8 a controlled demolition.
.

The interior collapsed first? Yes of course - that's how controlled demo always works. They want the building falling in on itself.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

The explosions were not from planted explosives. Had they been, the building would have been coming down in stages throughout the day as those explosions were heard. The building was burning uncontrollably for 7 hours. Had there been planted explosives, the building would have been falling sporadically and not have remained standing after 7 hours.

??? Has anyone here ever seen controlled demo bring down a building sporadically like this loony is saying?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

]false all you've got is the same twoofer bullshit you ass hats have been regurgitating...for 13 years...

And that's all we need. The 13 year old video of bldg 7 collapsing is the smokiest gun in history. Only the paid govt shills say otherwise.

 

[whitehall]

I went to the 9-11 memorial recently. The line was too long to get into the museum. The big hole in the ground with the waterfall on all four sides didn't impress me too much but a simple gesture of a single flower placed on the name of a victim engraved in the brass nameplates surrounding the memorial was moving to me. Strangely I didn't see a single sign or plaque to explain what it was all about.

 

[Faun]

EXPLOSIONS were heard and recorded on 911. NIST contrived its study to exclude the possibility of all explosives except for the very loudest. The simple fact of this matter is steel framed skyscrapers don't drop in their footprints without incendiaries being used. Maybe you should stop being afraid of what you don't understand?

https://archive.org/details/AudioEvidenceOfWtcBuilding7Explosion

The explosions were not from planted explosives. Had they been, the building would have been coming down in stages throughout the day as those explosions were heard. The building was burning uncontrollably for 7 hours. Had there been planted explosives, the building would have been falling sporadically and not have remained standing after 7 hours.

The building wasn't burning uncontrollably at any point during that day.
Fires were isolated and their temperatures were too low to affect steel in the ways nanothermite would. Why don't you tell us how nanothermite turned up in WTC7 dust samples?

You suffer from some serious delusions. Possibly explains why you think building 7 was intentionally brought down.

At some point, firefighters determined the building was destroyed and too dangerous to enter, so they stopped trying top put out the fires. Also, the sprinkler system was damaged when the towers fell on building 7. Here's some video of building 7 burning out of control.

Here, there's smoke pouring out of most of the 50 stories on south side of the building as firemen can be heard saying that's why they pulled everyone out of there.:

at 2:38, there are fires raging out of control

at 3:37 the fire shown seconds earlier is now seen spreading to multiple floors.



at the 1:33 mark, you can hear: "look at the hole in that building ... that's gonna come down."

Here's a video showing the 20 story hole observed in the previous video



More fires:



More fires (at the 1:30 mark, you can see a fire burning out of control and no firemen anywhere around)

 

[Faun]

[

And again, in an actual controlled demolition, the entire building collapses in the area where the explosives are detonated. In stark contrast with building 7, the interior of the building began collapsing about 7 seconds before the exterior. That doesn't happen 8 a controlled demolition.
.

The interior collapsed first? Yes of course - that's how controlled demo always works. They want the building falling in on itself.

You're too funny.

When I pointed out earlier how the interior collapsed before the exterior, your reply was, "Really? HAHAHA. You paid govt shills are too obvious."

Now that you've taken a closer look and see I'm actually right, you try to explain it away with your fantasy about that's how controlled demolitions work.

No, idiot, that's not how they work. No controlled demolition would ever try to bring the interior of a building down first.

Here's a video of a bunch of videos of actual controlled demolitions ... not one brings the interior down before the exterior ...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno#t=24[/ame]


@1:10 is a great shot looking down so you can see the roof. You can see the whole building falling, not just the interior. Now compare that to building 7 where you can see the roof collapse about 7 seconds before the exterior collapses ....



At 0:03, the east penthouse can be seen collapsing into the building ... at 0:10, the rest of the building comes down ...

.... insert your delusions here -->

 

[Faun]

[

The explosions were not from planted explosives. Had they been, the building would have been coming down in stages throughout the day as those explosions were heard. The building was burning uncontrollably for 7 hours. Had there been planted explosives, the building would have been falling sporadically and not have remained standing after 7 hours.

??? Has anyone here ever seen controlled demo bring down a building sporadically like this loony is saying?

Thanks for making my point. No, controlled demolitions don't come down sporadically. Nor did I say they do. It's your dementia which seems to be leading you to think that I did.

What I did say was had there been explosives planted in building 7, they would have been detonated sporadically and the building would have come down sporadically with the random detonations. The building would not have remained standing for 7 hours and then fallen straight down since the structure would have been weakened unevenly.

 

[georgephillip]

[

And again, in an actual controlled demolition, the entire building collapses in the area where the explosives are detonated. In stark contrast with building 7, the interior of the building began collapsing about 7 seconds before the exterior. That doesn't happen 8 a controlled demolition.
.

The interior collapsed first? Yes of course - that's how controlled demo always works. They want the building falling in on itself.

You're too funny.

When I pointed out earlier how the interior collapsed before the exterior, your reply was, "Really? HAHAHA. You paid govt shills are too obvious."

Now that you've taken a closer look and see I'm actually right, you try to explain it away with your fantasy about that's how controlled demolitions work.

No, idiot, that's not how they work. No controlled demolition would ever try to bring the interior of a building down first.

Here's a video of a bunch of videos of actual controlled demolitions ... not one brings the interior down before the exterior ...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno#t=24[/ame]


@1:10 is a great shot looking down so you can see the roof. You can see the whole building falling, not just the interior. Now compare that to building 7 where you can see the roof collapse about 7 seconds before the exterior collapses ....



At 0:03, the east penthouse can be seen collapsing into the building ... at 0:10, the rest of the building comes down ...

.... insert your delusions here -->

Once the roofline begins its descent, the building comes straight down through the path of greatest resistance into its own foot print in eight seconds and your delusion is sporadic office fires, right?

 

[georgephillip]

"Although Building 7 was never hit by an airplane and had only isolated pockets of fires on about 10 floors, it suddenly imploded – coming down neatly, symmetrically, and completely at 5:20 p.m.

"The official story, according to NIST, is that WTC 7 collapsed due to 'normal office fires' which created a 'new phenomenon' in high-rise fires: destruction due to thermal expansion of steel beams, leading to the progressive collapse of nine floors.

"This ultimately caused the failure of column #79 – which was followed within seconds by all the rest.

"Some observers had speculated that stores of diesel fuel inside the building might have produced exceptionally intense fires leading to the unusual collapse. However, NIST has officially acknowledged that diesel fuel was not involved.

"NIST also ultimately concluded that the impact of debris from the North Tower was not a significant contributor to the collapse, although it was blamed for starting the fires.

"What NIST’s top engineers failed to explain – and often even to acknowledge – in their Final Report were the many features of the building’s destruction that are normally seen only in explosive controlled demolitions."

Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11

 

[Faun]

"Although Building 7 was never hit by an airplane and had only isolated pockets of fires on about 10 floors, it suddenly imploded – coming down neatly, symmetrically, and completely at 5:20 p.m.

"The official story, according to NIST, is that WTC 7 collapsed due to 'normal office fires' which created a 'new phenomenon' in high-rise fires: destruction due to thermal expansion of steel beams, leading to the progressive collapse of nine floors.

"This ultimately caused the failure of column #79 – which was followed within seconds by all the rest.

"Some observers had speculated that stores of diesel fuel inside the building might have produced exceptionally intense fires leading to the unusual collapse. However, NIST has officially acknowledged that diesel fuel was not involved.

"NIST also ultimately concluded that the impact of debris from the North Tower was not a significant contributor to the collapse, although it was blamed for starting the fires.

"What NIST’s top engineers failed to explain – and often even to acknowledge – in their Final Report were the many features of the building’s destruction that are normally seen only in explosive controlled demolitions."

Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11

I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty to highlight the bullshit in your post ... While there was one feature normally seen in a controlled demolition (that the building fell into its own footprint), you can't ignore the fact that there were also some required elements of a controlled demolition obviously missing from building 7's demise -- notably the absence of explosives being set off throughout the building in the seconds before it collapsed.

And again, you can't ignore the fact that there would have been explosions throughout the day, bringing parts of the building down sporadically, had there been explosives planted strategically with the intent of bringing the building down, due to the fires that were burning uncontrollably.

 

[Faun]

The interior collapsed first? Yes of course - that's how controlled demo always works. They want the building falling in on itself.

You're too funny.

When I pointed out earlier how the interior collapsed before the exterior, your reply was, "Really? HAHAHA. You paid govt shills are too obvious."

Now that you've taken a closer look and see I'm actually right, you try to explain it away with your fantasy about that's how controlled demolitions work.

No, idiot, that's not how they work. No controlled demolition would ever try to bring the interior of a building down first.

Here's a video of a bunch of videos of actual controlled demolitions ... not one brings the interior down before the exterior ...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno#t=24[/ame]


@1:10 is a great shot looking down so you can see the roof. You can see the whole building falling, not just the interior. Now compare that to building 7 where you can see the roof collapse about 7 seconds before the exterior collapses ....



At 0:03, the east penthouse can be seen collapsing into the building ... at 0:10, the rest of the building comes down ...

.... insert your delusions here -->

Once the roofline begins its descent, the building comes straight down through the path of greatest resistance into its own foot print in eight seconds and your delusion is sporadic office fires, right?

First of all, the roof collapses about 7 seconds before the rest of the building. By design, that does not happen in a controlled demolition. That alone is a good indication that it was not a controlled demolition which brought down building 7.

Secondly, I do not maintain it was the fires alone which brought building 7 down ... contributing greatly to its collapse was the fact that a 110 story building next to it fell, pounding it with debris along the way down. That left a hole about 20 stories tall in the building, severely compromising the structure. Add fires burning out of control (no sprinklers, little to no effort by firefighters to extinguish the blazes), and it's not a shock that a building of that size collapsed because the weight was too much for the lower floors to sustain after that much damage was incurred.

 

[Faun]

For a good laugh, check this dialog out ...

Faun: "Plus, the inside of building 7 collapsed before the outside. Something else which doesn't occur in an actual controlled demolition."

ShootSpeeders: "Really? HAHAHA. You paid govt shills are too obvious."

Faun: "And again, in an actual controlled demolition, the entire building collapses in the area where the explosives are detonated. In stark contrast with building 7, the interior of the building began collapsing about 7 seconds before the exterior. That doesn't happen 8 a controlled demolition."

ShootSpeeders: "The interior collapsed first? Yes of course - that's how controlled demo always works. They want the building falling in on itself."​

Too funny!

After first laughing at me for pointing out how the interior of building 7 collapsed before the exterior, and calling me a "paid government shill" for doing so, shootspeeders then agrees with me that the interior did in fact fall before the exterior. And then takes it one step further by [falsely] claiming that that is how contolled demolitions are done, evern though there's no evidence that there's ever been a controlled demolition done where the interior of a building was brought down 7 seconds before the exterior.



Hey, shootspeeders, now that you agree with me that the interior came down first, doesn't that make YOU a paid government shill???

 

[ShootSpeeders]

First of all, the roof collapses about 7 seconds before the rest of the building. By design, that does not happen in a controlled demolition. That alone is a good indication that it was not a controlled demolition which brought down building 7.

.

7 seconds!!!! HAHAHA. More like 1/2 second. What outrageous lies you govt shills tell. But then, you have no choice since your position is so contrary to the facts.

 

[georgephillip]

"Although Building 7 was never hit by an airplane and had only isolated pockets of fires on about 10 floors, it suddenly imploded – coming down neatly, symmetrically, and completely at 5:20 p.m.

"The official story, according to NIST, is that WTC 7 collapsed due to 'normal office fires' which created a 'new phenomenon' in high-rise fires: destruction due to thermal expansion of steel beams, leading to the progressive collapse of nine floors.

"This ultimately caused the failure of column #79 – which was followed within seconds by all the rest.

"Some observers had speculated that stores of diesel fuel inside the building might have produced exceptionally intense fires leading to the unusual collapse. However, NIST has officially acknowledged that diesel fuel was not involved.

"NIST also ultimately concluded that the impact of debris from the North Tower was not a significant contributor to the collapse, although it was blamed for starting the fires.

"What NIST’s top engineers failed to explain – and often even to acknowledge – in their Final Report were the many features of the building’s destruction that are normally seen only in explosive controlled demolitions."

Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11

I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty to highlight the bullshit in your post ... While there was one feature normally seen in a controlled demolition (that the building fell into its own footprint), you can't ignore the fact that there were also some required elements of a controlled demolition obviously missing from building 7's demise -- notably the absence of explosives being set off throughout the building in the seconds before it collapsed.

And again, you can't ignore the fact that there would have been explosions throughout the day, bringing parts of the building down sporadically, had there been explosives planted strategically with the intent of bringing the building down, due to the fires that were burning uncontrollably.

There were numerous explosions reported by first responders, and recorded by the media.
There were multiple indications of controlled demolition like the crimp in the middle of the roof line as it begins its descent, and the lateral ejections of steel beams during collapse. I don't see why you think there would have been explosions going off during the time before collapse from isolated office fires on random floors. All the controversy we discuss tells me there are good reasons for an independent investigation into WTC7, but I suspect you don't want that. Why not?