12bytes Mumble meet every Sat. night!
Coronavirus information & resources
Vaccines - What You Need To Know

'Proof Gov Wrong About Collapse of WTC Building 7?' - Ben Swann gets it wrong

Pentagon cross section drawing

Ben Swann: Proof Gov Wrong About Collapse of WTC Building 7? (New Evidence 2019)

In this report Ben repeats the claim that World Trade Center building 7 contained only small, isolated fires. Ben interviews Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth about the recent study regarding the collapse of building 7 by University of Alaska, Fairbanks, which concluded that the collapse scenario proposed by NIST is impossible.

There are two points which need to be made regarding Swann's report. First of all, building 7 had been burning for roughly 8 hours prior to its collapse and the fires in the building were extensive, not small nor isolated. Contributing to the progression of the fire is the apparent fact that the FDNY was unable to combat it due their ongoing work in the area of the collapsed WTC towers 1 and 2, as well as a lack of resources.

While spending some time in New York, i was in the company of a veteran firefighter who, on 11 September 2001, was in the immediate vicinity of building 7 prior to its collapse and he stated without hesitation that building 7 was essentially consumed by fire and that he was not at all surprised that it collapsed.

In the following videos smoke can be seen pouring from building 7.

WTC 7 Skader 01 FDNY Tape1 34

WTC 7 Skader 04 NBC2 Restricted tape clip 8

WTC 7 Skader 05 NBC2 Restricted tape clip 18

More videos can be found here.

Personally i hold no opinion on the cause of the global collapse of building 7, but i think it is important to state the facts regardless of how inconvenient they may be.

The second point i'd like to make is in regard to the analytical ability of Richard Gage and the AE911 community. Gage implied for years that a plane, a), did not hit the Pentagon and b), that a plane could not have punctured all the reinforced concrete rings of the Pentagon. What Gage and many of his followers failed to do, as i recently learned from Ryan Dawson of ANC Report, was to bother to look at how the building was constructed prior to making their claims, claims which they have apparently finally backpedaled on. The plane did not have to penetrate 6 exterior walls of the Pentagon because the ground floor only had 2 exterior walls. How in the hell does an architect or a building engineer miss this obvious fact for years? In the image below, the plane would have been traveling from left to right.

Pentagon cross section

Below is another drawing of the Pentagon. The plane penetrated the area labeled "general offices", not the rings above.

Pentagon cross section drawing

Ben Swann usually does a pretty great job putting together his reports, so i don't wish to ding him too hard with this, but the obvious mistakes he makes need to be pointed out.

As for the government story regarding 9/11, it is largely a fabrication, however those interested in the truth only discredit themselves by failing to do proper research and repeating long debunked and fanciful claims.

12 thoughts on “'Proof Gov Wrong About Collapse of WTC Building 7?' - Ben Swann gets it wrong”

  1. they applied all the information filed on this building from the blueprints into the simulation. They did their research and spent four years on it and in one article your discrediting them? Ben didn’t say anything about the pentagon in his show. Why are you using that to discredit him?

    1. science has never been wrong before?

      and i didn’t discredit the report – i pointed out a mistake made by Ben and others when they parrot the claim that there were only small, isolated fires in 7 – this has nothing to do with the report

      Ben interviewed Gage who, for years, promoted the nonsense about a plane not hitting the Pentagon – i brought up the Pentagon for the reason stated in the article

      1. That’s a pretty bold question in defense of your article, science has never been wrong before? It’s not science that no other skyscraper in history has ever collapsed in on itself until 9/11 and there hasn’t been one since. Also you’re taking one piece and acting like it has a more significant role in the story than it does with the isolated fires etc. his report is about the call for an investigation and the significance of that. People are looking for answers and they are called truthers to alienate that perspective. I find this article doesn’t live up to 12bytes normal standard

        1. Also you’re taking one piece and acting like it has a more significant role in the story than it does with the isolated fires etc.

          i think the intensity of the fires in 7 is not at all trivial in understanding how the building collapsed, but the point is, was Ben correct in stating that there were only small pockets of fire and the answer is no, he isn’t

          no one is infallible, including Ben, and so i’m wondering why you seem to have a problem with me pointing out his mistake regarding the fires – is he perfect?

          as for me making too much of his error, i get that since i am a bit cynical in nature but again i would say that the intensity of the fires may be extremely important and therefore shouldn’t be understated

          it isn’t just Ben i targeted with the article – it’s a key part of the so-called ‘truther’ community that keeps repeating nonsensical garbage (no planes, holograms, missiles, nukes, space rays, etc.) that damages and discredits the serious researchers – this is partly why i mentioned Gage because here’s an architect that failed to understand the most basic construction of the Pentagon before spouting off *for years* that a plane could not have done the damage that the plane did – there is no excuse for this

          i think Ben Swann is a great guy – i watch most everything he puts out – but he isn’t perfect and if you have an issue with me posting about that, i’m sorry, but that’s a large part of what i do here

          to answer your previous question, no, i have traditionally never accepted content from anyone, but only because no one ever asked about it – if you have content you’d like to submit, and even if it challenges my POV, i’m certainly open to evaluating it

          1. I am visiting your site after some years and I’m staggered that you indulge this claptrap with a presence on your website.

            Dr Judy Wood’s book ‘Where Did The Towers Go?’ is an unsurpassed forensic examination of the evidence surrounding the disintegration of the World Trade Centre complex. I am stunned and very disappointed that you are not promoting her excellent work.

            Dr Wood does not address the hole in the Pentagon. That a missile was fired at the Pentagon is almost irrelevant to the main event, the big secret – we have access to unlimited clean energy. Proof positive of the fact is in the events of 9/11 – a demonstration of the weaponisation of free energy technology.

            1. Dr Judy Wood’s book ‘Where Did The Towers Go?’ is an unsurpassed forensic examination …

              Judy Wood is an unsurpassed forensic example of a blabbering nonsensical moron

              That a missile was fired at the Pentagon …

              care to explain the DNA evidence for nearly all of the passengers? the tons of plane parts recovered from inside and outside the building? the light poles? that fact that many people saw a plane approaching, yet none saw it fly away?

              1. Oh dear! I so much appreciated your site several years back, addressing as it did, subjects others would not dare to go near. I have not explored it since. Your view of Dr Judy Wood does you no service. Have you read her book?

                1. i read the “no planes” and “directed energy” bullshit
                  that was more than enough

                  it is this garbage that has, and continues to pollute real investigative work

                  if you want to promote or talk about this discredited moron, please go elsewhere – kindergarten is over

                  1. Dear Friend,

                    It seems I have struck a nerve. So sorry to have disturbed you.

                    If the door is closed I have no interest in pushing against it. Dr Wood’s book stands up for itself.

                    Kind regards,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *