Search This Blog

Friday, August 22, 2008


"WTC 7 explanation falls short" {Letter to the Editor of The Houston Chronicle}

After I read Friday's Page A8 article, "Sept. 11 building enigma solved in investigation," and reviewed the National Institute of Standards and Technology Web site, I can only conclude that the "final" and official government explanation of why World Trade Center tower 7 collapsed is a far cry from a plausible explanation.

WTC 7, which was not struck by a plane and had only minor isolated fires, collapsed in perfect symmetry at literally free-fall speed. Prior to 9/11 no steel structured building had ever collapsed or even come close to collapsing due to fire. The official explanation that this symmetrical eight-second collapse was due to "thermal expansion" of the steel structure because of scattered and isolated fires defies common sense and the most elementary laws of physics. The computer model presented on the NIST Web site does not even match the video of the actual collapse.

A controlled demolition model was dismissed, allegedly because explosions were not heard. This conclusion totally defies eyewitness accounts of explosions prior to the collapse, which are widely available on the Internet. Additionally, since the controlled-demolition hypothesis was not considered, no attempt was made to examine debris for explosive residue.

Further objective investigation is clearly needed. If evidence suggests explosives were planted prior to the collapse, perhaps Securacom, the company in charge of WTC security, should be investigated as well. Since Securacom was run by the president's brother Marvin Bush and cousin Wirt Walker, I'm sure we can count on their full cooperation.

The Woodlands

the earth is not flat, quit telling me it is flat
my charcoal burning barbeque has not collapsed. Charcoal burns hotter then jet fuel.
no one would have predicted it's collaspe. but they did
sheeple1950 on Mon, 08/25/2008 - 3:44pm

9/11 at 5pm. This is the 1st known such failure of a skyscraper.

(WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein, youtube)

Nobody uses term "pull it" to evacuate building. It is obvious that larry gave permission to take the building down

clip on the WTC 7 collapse is taken from a PBS documentary America Rebuilds. In this clip, the owner of building 7, Larry Silverstein, talks about the World Trade Center 7 collapse on 9/11, stating "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to able to contain the fire." Silverstein then relates his conversation with the fire commander: "I said 'you know we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'" Silverstein follow this with, "and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse." To see this clip:

When challenged with this, Mr. Silverstein has claimed that by "pull it," he meant pull the firefighters from the building. But if that is true, why did he link the pulling of the building with watching it collapse? The "and then" in his sentence clearly indicates a link between the "decision to pull" and the collapse. Others have claimed "pull it" is not a demolition term. For strong evidence that it is, click here. It should be noted that Larry Silverstein finalized his 99-year lease of the World Trade Center buildings on July 24, 2001, just six weeks before 9/11. It was the first time these buildings had ever been in private hands. Mr. Silverstein claimed $7 billion in insurance losses. That's quite a decent profit for buildings he had only taken over six weeks earlier.

listen at 51 min 30 seconds...

... simple, straightforward, elegant and going along with what was observed. I would say that the findings we have are incredibly conclusive that fire is why WTC 7 collapsed..


The CSPAN introduction says it all...

A Government report says (haha) that fires destroyed World Trade Center Building Seven on September 11., 2001.
Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the collapse of the 47 story building was the first known incidence of fire causing the total failure of a skyscraper.
The collapse came about a 7 hours after the twin towers came down.

How IN-credible!!

51m30sec -- INCREDIBLY conclusive... ha ha ha, truly NOT CREDIBLE... "alternative theories are... ah ah not credible" Imagine... the BBC reported the building as HAVING COLLAPSED before it actually did..

how INCREDIBLE is that?


NIST's explanation for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11th follows the logic in the cartoon above.

Specifically, NIST claims that the collapse of building 7 is "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building".

But then goes on to argue:

"The fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event"



Debunking NIST's conclusions about WTC 7 is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

Symmetrical Collapse

NIST lamely tried to explain the symmetrically collapse as follows:

WTC 7’s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

NIST can't have it both ways. If the exterior frame was so stiff and strong, then it should have stopped the collapse, or - at the very least - we would have seen a bowing effect where tremendous opposing forces were battling each other for dominance in determining the direction of the fall.

In real life, the thick structural beams and "stiff [and strong]" exterior frame used in the building should have quickly stopped any partial collapse, unless the support columns were all blown. At the very worst, we should see a 1 or 2 floor partial collapse.

Freefall Speed

NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than freefall speed. But it collapsed alot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn't very impressive -- that's like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.

Again, why did the building collapse at all, given that the thick structural beams should have quickly stopped any partial collapse?

Fires Knocked Down Steel-Frame Buildings

NIST said fires alone brought down Building 7, but other office fires have burned longer and hotter without causing collapse.

No Explosive Sounds

NIST also said:

"No blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses."

Oh, really?

What about this, this, this, this, this, this and this?

Moreover, as discussed below, high-tech explosives don't necessarily make the same loud "booms" that dynamite make.

High-Tech Explosive Residues

And why were there residues for high-tech explosives at ground zero (and see this)?

Molten and Partially Evaporated Steel

And what about the pools of molten metal at ground zero for months? And why was the at and under the ground at the site of WTC 7 as hot as the ground under WTC 1 and 2?

And the New York Times wrote that partly EVAPORATED steel beams were found at WTC 7. But normal office and diesel fires are not NEARLY hot enough to evaporate steel. Hydrocarbon fires fueled by diesel (which was apparently stored at WTC 7) and normal office materials cannot evaporate steel. Steel does not evaporate unless it is heated to at least 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Everyone agrees that fires from conventional building fires are thousands of degrees cooler than that.


And why didn't NIST address the obvious pre-knowledge by everyone around and well in advance that 7 was going to come down?


And why didn't NIST address what these experts say?:

  • Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"
  • Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
"Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds... ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."
  • Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
"WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"

Popular Mechanics chooses to confuse the issue by showing THE WRONG TOWER:

how shameless...

WTC 7 Video Gallery

youtube*, google

youtube (close-up 1)

youtube (close-up 2)





Reporter: "...that building number 7 was going to collapse. That appears to be what has happened now."


"...when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down." - Dan Rather


youtube*, google




youtube*, google



google - (911 Eyewitness - Experiment shows that WTC 7 fell at freefall speed; 2:02)


youtube* (@2:20), youtube*

Rescuer 1: "Did you hear that?"

Rescuer 2: "Keep your eye on that building. It will be coming down soon."

Rescuer 3: "The building's about to blow up. Moving back... We are walking back. There is a building, about to blow up."

Rescuer 4: "It's gone man!"

Rescuer 5: "Seven came down?"

youtube*, youtube1, youtube2, google, google (24 sec)

"'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

youtube*, youtube*, google

"Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six."

"We had to be very careful how we demolished building six."


History Channel (@ 7:53)

"Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item... We were unable to do that in the case of tower 7."

WTC 7 comparison





WTC 7 9-11 - youtube (4:03)

WTC 7 Controlled Demolition (6:42)

(*Killtown's YouTube videos)

No comments: