#911Truth WTFact #5: Building 7
Did you miss the introduction to this year’s campaign?
Building what? – Judge Edward Lehner, in a case about 9/11, unaware of the 3rd building collapsing that day
How did the 9/11 Commission say Building 7 collapsed
AE 911 (PDF)
Various hypotheses were considered for the initiation of complete global collapse. The possibilities considered by NIST included (1) a fire-induced local failure leading to vertical and horizontal failure progression throughout the entire structural system, (2) a fire-induced failure from burning diesel fuel leading to complete global collapse, and (3) a blast-induced demolition scenario.
According to NIST: The leading hypothesis for the failure sequence that characterized the initial local failure was based on fire-induced failure events in the tenant floors. A heat-induced column failure hypothesis was quickly ruled out after concluding the fires were not hot enough for the duration of time required to reduce the steel strength by 50 percent. Therefore, it would not have been possible for a building contents fire to have heated a massive, insulated column such as Column 79 to the point of failure.
The NCST Act was signed into law in 2002, and it specifies NIST’s responsibility to ”establish the likely technical cause or causes of the building failure;” the focus of the WTC 7 investigation as defined by NIST is not the same as establishing the likely cause of collapse. The challenge was to determine if a fire-induced floor system failure could occur in WTC 7 under an ordinary building contents fire.
In its brief dismissal of the controlled-demolition scenario, NIST argues that careful preparation of columns for demolition could not be accomplished without detection, and ”Controlled demolition usually prepares most, if not all, interior columns in a building with explosive charges, not just one column.”
While NCSTAR authors imply that demolition of multiple columns would be required and unlikely, the same authors conclude that the buckling failure of a single column was sufficient to trigger a complete progressive collapse of the entire building. If a single-column failure could bring the entire building down, it does not matter how that column was removed. If a man-made collapse required extensive preparation to deliberately break every column on multiple floors, then a “natural” single-column failure could not possibly cause rapid, symmetrical, and complete global collapse—straight down in classic controlled-demolition style.
Observations for WTC 7 do not match the typical sequence of events for a controlled demolition.
This collapse sequence is inconsistent with a typical controlled demolition…
The main contradictions to the official explanation
Only fire-induced floor-system failure was seriously considered by NIST as the cause of collapse initiation. Abundant and well-documented evidence suggesting the controlled demolition of WTC 7—including news videos, witnesses hearing explosions, foreknowledge of the collapse, first-responder reports of molten metal in the debris, extreme surface temperatures recorded by NASA thermal imaging for weeks following the collapse, and evidence of melted structural steel—was simply ignored.
It is difficult to imagine how anyone interested in establishing the likely technical cause of the building failure could ignore evidence of a ”liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.”
This was obviously not caused by an ordinary fire consuming only building contents.
The structural damage described by NIST is attributed to flying debris from WTC 1 which was located over 300 feet (90 meters) to the south of WTC 7. The location and extent of damage is especially significant
because the horizontal progression of failures during the global collapse sequence reported in NCSTAR 1-9 and 1-9A depends on significant interior damage to the western core structure, even though NIST clearly states that significant damage to the core framing was unlikely. Figures 5-92 through 5-101 graphically show the extent of impact damage based on visual data. NIST concludes the following in the summary of
debris damage to WTC 7:
…it is likely that the structural damage (steel and floor slabs) did not penetrate beyond the perimeter of the building core.
…there was relatively little damage to the interior of WTC 7.
WTC 7 withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed…
The structural damage to WTC 7 was primarily located at the southwest corner and adjacent areas of the west and south faces, on Floors 5 through 17. Severed columns were located between Floors 7 and 17 on the south face (six columns) and the west face (one column) near the southwest corner.
The core columns and girders were assumed to be structurally undamaged.
This summary of structural damage due to debris impact indicates no damage to floor framing in the western core. The following statement regarding the analysis of debris impact and collapse progression from east to west through the core structure demonstrates the contradiction between statements based on visual data and statements based on the analytical model.
In the analysis with debris impact damage, the core framing damage on the west side resulted in a more rapid failure of the west interior columns in the last stages of the horizontal progression.
NCSTAR 1-9 Section 12.4.2 is titled ”Building Response to Debris-Impact Damage.” This section, however, does not say how the debris-impact damage was estimated.
NIST states ”The fires in WTC 7 were ignited as a result of the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1,” but this remains an assumption because there was never a basic fire investigation to determine
the exact source or nature of the fires. There were fires reported in WTC 7 after the debris cloud cleared, but these accounts do not pinpoint the initial source of fire. NIST admits that the source of the fire is unknown.
The specific ignition processes are not known, e.g., whether from flaming brands, electrical shorts,
What other possibilities are included in the ”etcetera” category? Was arson a possibility? How about evidence of incendiary or pyrotechnic materials found in the debris? Why has NIST neglected to investigate these possibilities? It is apparent that this type of criminal investigation was declared ”beyond the scope” of the WTC 7 study, but even NIST cannot determine the most likely cause of building failure without a complete
accounting of the facts.
NIST describes the fire simulations performed using their Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). The purpose of the fire dynamics simulation is to model the growth, spread and temperature distribution of the fire. The Overview 49
provides no real evidence—photographic, eyewitness or otherwise—leading to a conclusion that the collapse of WTC 1 started the fires on floors seven through nine and 11 through 13. Calculations performed for WTC 7 were similar to those performed for the Twin Towers, but NIST admits ”the details of these fires are not as precise as for the fires in the towers.”
The uncertainty of the calculations based on little visual or other evidence is implied.
…the ignition and early course of the fires were unknown because they were presumed to have occurred in the damaged and heavily smoke-shrouded southern portion of the building.
Regarding the spread of fire on the 12th floor, NIST says ”The floor plan suggests that fire may have spread onto the east face from the south by moving along a corridor.” 52
Corridors in office buildings have practically no combustible materials, so this assumption may be inconsistent with the calculations. Additional photographs and statements magnify the uncertainty in the NIST prediction of fire dynamics. For example the northeast corner of WTC 7 was photographed with the camera facing south at around 4:00 p.m. on 9/11/01. In NIST’s words ”…there is no indication of fires burning on the east side of the 12th floor at this time.” The north face at floors 10through 14 was also photographed at around 4:38 p.m. In NIST’s words ”All of the visible windows on the 12th and 13th floors are open in Figure 5-149. There is no indication of fire at these locations on either floor.” Indeed, all the windows appear dark. NIST also states ”Closer inspection of Figure 5-142 reveals what appears to be a relatively light plume of white smoke rising from near the top of the louvers that spanned the 5th
floors on the east face.” According to NIST, however, ”The floors below Floor 7…did not heat significantly due to the absence of fire activity.” So what was the source of the white smoke from below floor seven?
Witnesses to explosions
Not everyone had evacuated WTC 7 by the time WTC 1 collapsed. WTC 7 interview numbers 2041604 and 1041704 from 2004 are cited regarding the two New York City employees. The WTC 7 interviews listed in the NIST report have not been released, but Dylan Avery’s interview with Barry Jennings, who was trapped inside WTC 7 when both of the Twin Towers collapsed, is available.
His personal experience on 9/11 included explosions inside WTC 7 prior to the collapse of WTC 1. This indicates, again, that NIST has not established the likely cause of initial structural damage to WTC 7
“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” -Larry Silverstein
The events surrounding Building 7 have been largely ignored and for obvious reasons. The cause of the building’s collapse is so obvious that many official entities simply close their eyes and try to ignore the events altogether. To understand how obvious it should be that Building 7 was a controlled demoliton, see #16 on this list for demolition expert Danny Jowenko’s take. Most people are unaware that three buildings collapsed in New York on September 11th. As a point of reference, a WTF News survey found that 32% of respondents were familiar with Building 7. That is probably really high compared to actual national awareness.
Over 6 years after its investigation, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology, part of the U.S. Department of Commerce) issued what has been seen as an underwhelming final report on Building 7, in November 2008. The important parts of NIST’s report were what wasn’t said actually said. NIST couldn’t come up with a credible consensus on how the building collapsed. The controversy surrounding Building 7 has raged on ever since. It was amplified last year with the RememberBuilding7 Campaign getting wide attention in New York and other large cities.
The original 7 World Trade Center was 47 stories tall, clad in red exterior masonry, and occupied a trapezoidal footprint. An elevated walkway connected the building to the World Trade Center plaza. The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building.
Larry A. Silverstein (born May 30, 1931) is an American businessman, and real estate investor and developer in New York City.
Silverstein was born in Brooklyn, and became involved in real estate, together with his father, establishing Silverstein Properties. Silverstein separated from his business partner, Bernard Mendik, in 1977, and bought a number of large office buildings in Midtown and Lower Manhattan in the late 1970s. In 1980, Silverstein won a bid from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to construct 7 World Trade Center, to the north of the World Trade Center site. Silverstein was interested in acquiring the entire World Trade Center complex, and put in a bid when the Port Authority put it up for lease in 2000. Silverstein won the bid when a deal between the initial winner and the Port Authority fell through, and he signed the lease on July 24, 2001.
The new Building 7 has already been rebuilt and opened in 2006 to very little fanfare. Building 7 gets relegated to obscurity because the more discussion it receives, the more attention will be paid to the controversial collapse.
The destruction of Building 7 exhibited tell-tale signs of a controlled demolition:
- The building sank into its footprint.
- The remarkably short rubble pile was mostly confined to the building’s footprint, with exterior wall sections lying on top.
- The demolition produced a dust cloud with at least the volume of the building.
- Was in free-fall for 2.25 seconds.
This video is the corner of Building 7, watch it until you see the explosives
Reports from People Outside WTC 7: NIST continued this approach in its WTC 7 report. There had been several credible reports of explosions. A reporter for the New York Daily News, said:
[T]here was a rumble. The building’s top row of windows popped out. Then all the windows on the thirty-ninth floor popped out. Then the thirty-eighth floor. Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the building sunk into a rising cloud of gray.
NYPD officer Craig Bartmer said:
I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down. . . . [A]ll of a sudden. . . I looked up, and . . . [t]he thing started pealing in on itself. . . . I started running . . . and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.”
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, “A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said.
But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures”.
A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC;
Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides relevant data. Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:
Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire…
The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.” (Glover, 2002)
That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings
have occurred many times before — all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition.
Dr. Steven Jones, Journal of 911 Studies.
The fact that reasonable people can disagree on the collapse of Building 7 is evidence enough that our awareness as a people is a chronic probem. Worse yet is that the record stands in history that the criminals that orchestrated this are profiting from their actions.
What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001, presumably without the use of explosives. Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire… ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures nywhere near the ~5,180F (~2860C) needed to evaporate steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not hit by a jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.) However, thermitevariants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice through steel, thus cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach the required temperatures. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports. reporter on building 7 coming down http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-WZpXiEKAo&feature=related
The scientific case put forth by Dr. Jones is exactly the conversation that is needed to flush the criminal activity to the surface.
There is brazen criminality in Building 7 alone. Numerous people knew before the collapse that the building was coming down soon.
Building 7 countdown
How did they know it was going to happen?
Larry Silverstein says he made the decision to “pull it”
This statement is seen to be evidence of criminality as the term “pull it” is sometimes used in the controlled demolition industry to describe bringing a building down with explosives. Debunkers will tell you this term is not used like that or Silverstein meant pull the firefighters out and let the building collapse. The following video explains a technique also known as pulling a building down, but with either cables or making strategic cuts in the supports. This is the common claim pulled out as proof Silverstein wasn’t talking about explosives.
There is no sign of the building being actively pulled down with cables or those strategic cuts, so how could that be the case?
In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7 that news outlets are reporting “puts 9/11 conspiracy theories to bed,” NIST claims 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.
NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building’s collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”
If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?
This on its own completely destroys the very foundation of NIST’s assertion that a “new phenomenon” was responsible for the collapse.
Which is the more likely scenario – that ground zero officials and media outlets got word that the building was going to be “pulled” – or that they employed clairvoyant powers of deduction that enabled them to foresee an event that had never happened before in history to a building that was structurally reinforced and had suffered limited fires?
The question asked by Paul Joseph Watson is an accurate representation of where the movement was then, but sadly still is now. While awareness is spreading, it may not be spreading fast enough.
One claim debunkers will make is that the fires were raging out of control and the picture below is said to be proof.
What can’t be told from the pictures is how widespread the fire was and how many floors, the large amount of smoke could have been in a localized area but billowing heavily.
There is also a theory that some of this dust and smoke from the Twin Towers behind it, but there is no way to tell. While the building may have been damaged, it could not have collapsed in the manner it did without destructive force.
As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let’s review the evidence…
What we do have for sure.
1) Fireman saying there was “a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” “I would say it was probably about a third of it”.
2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, “that building doesn’t look straight.” He then says “It didn’t look right”.
3) They put a transit on it and afterward were “pretty sure she was going to collapse.”
4) They “saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13”.
5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.
6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.
7) The collapse happened from the bottom.
8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can’t see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.
9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word “Pull” to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
10) Silverstein denies “Pull” means “Controlled demolition”. He said it means “Pull” the teams out of the building.
11) Silverstein did not make the decision to “Pull”. (Whatever that means) “they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse”
12) Another fire fighter used “Pull” to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
What we don’t have…
1) Clear view of the large hole
2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact
3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side
4) Any sign of an actual explosive.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said “Pull” and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word “Pull” to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?
There is no doubt “Pull” means pull the firemen out.
The excerpt above makes a good attempt at quelling disinfo, but it’s flawed in this manner. Silverstein said “pull it”, why the word it and not “them”, referring to emergency personnel? It is correct to say that it doesn’t seem like Silverstein is saying he ordered “it” to be pulled, but more like it was a conclusion that multiple people had reached. But who else was involved if FDNY didn’t make any decisions regarding that? It also sounds like Silverstein was saying he was notified of the decision and he agreed in principle and to go along with it.
What is too assumptive is that the article takes the info that is unknown and says it’s evidence supporting the official government explanations which violate basic laws of physics. That is counter-productive to the goal of removing disinfo, and the fact is that the laws of physics should get the benefit of the doubt rather than elements of a corrupted government.
With that said, consider the tenant list of Building 7. It is an alphabet soup of government agencies, specifically the kind that have many documents some want private and others with documents many want destroyed, which sounds like motive, or at least mutual benefit.
Floor Tenant 46-47 Mechanical floors 28-45 Salomon Smith Barney (SSB) 26-27 Standard Chartered Bank 25 In[ternal] Revenue Service (IRS) 25 Department of Defense (DOD) 25 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 24 In[ternal] Revenue Service (IRS) 23 Office of Emergency Management (OEM) 22 Federal Home Loan Bank of New York 21 First State Management Group 19-21 ITT Hartford Insurance Group 19 National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) 18 Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 14-17 Vacant 13 Provident Financial Management 11-13 Securities and Exchange Commission 9-10 US Secret Service 7-8 American Express Bank International 7 OEM generators and day tank 6 Switchgear, storage 5 Switchgear, generators, transformers 4 Upper level of 3rd floor, switchgear 3 Lobby, SSB Conference Center, rentable space, manage 2 Open to first floor lobby, transformer vault upper level, upper level switchgear 1 Lobby, loading docks, existing Con Ed transformer vaults, fuel storage, lower level switchgear
Is it hard to imagine that a building with national security secrets or classified material hiding criminal evidence could have reason to be blown up? With as many spy agencies in the building, is it really a stretch to wonder if there were agency sanctioned explosives in the building already. With all the sensitive things in WTC 6 and under the WTC complex outlined here, it is food for thought. The SEC was also holding files on many investigations on site. There are many reasons to wonder about the contents of the building and why Building 7 needed to come down. The evidence is there that the official story defies physics and logic, but these things are held out of rational debate. Why?