New WTC 7 Findings: NIST criminally manipulated computer input data; explosions and extreme heat ignored; key videos cut short

"The web stiffeners shown at the end of the girder in Frankel drawing #9114 prevent web crippling. The [theoretical] structural analyses of WTC 7 did not show any web crippling failures. Therefore, the web crippling plates did not need to be included in the models/analyses. Again, we apologize for the length of time [19 months] it took to get this information back to you."

October 25, 2013, Michael Newman, NIST Public Affairs Office, to William Pepper, attorney for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. NIST is admitting criminal negligence here. They're also lying, because in this case the web stiffeners at the end of crucial girder A2001 were mainly there to prevent lateral walk off failure. If NIST had included them in the model, they couldn't have caused the initial collapse initiation failure. And this is just one problem with the NIST investigation no media outlet is willing to touch.

"[T]here was a rumble [coming from WTC7, which was captured on video a second before collapse initiation]. ... Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the building sunk into a rising cloud of gray."

2002, Chris Bull and Sam Erman, Editors, 'At Ground Zero: Young Reporters Who Were There Tell Their Stories', p. 97 (words of New York Daily News reporter Peter DeMarco, later of the Boston Globe)

"We were watching the building [WTC 7] as it was on fire - the bottom floors of the building were on fire. And we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. We turned around and we were shocked to see that the building was, what looked like a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busting out [as the penthouse crashed through the building]. It was horrifying. And then, you know, about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that."

New York University medical student with the name Daryl, interviewed on 1010 WINS NYC News Radio immediately after the collapse of WTC 7.





Intro: WTC 7 as separate from the Twin Towers

This article was originally meant to be part of ISGP's paper Whatever happened: Belief in WTC explosives widespread on 9/11 -- until authorities denied it; evidence of huge explosions, rapid flashes, and liquefied steel requires new investigation. It has been published separately instead, because in many respects the collapse of World Trade Center 7 should be seen as an event deserving its own investigation. Building 7 may have been part of the World Trade Center complex, with similar evidence of explosives and extreme heat, but at the same time WTC 7:

wasn't hit by an airplane; was largely undamaged; had all its fireproofing intact; is said by NIST to have collapsed from fire in an undamaged area farthest removed from the Twin Towers; collapsed from the bottom instead from the top; had a collapse zone instated with debates going on whether or not to take it down in controlled fashion.

The official reasons provided for the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 are quite different, so mixing the two can be very confusing. At the same time a confirmation by the government that explosives were used to bring WTC 7 down would be less earth-shattering than would be the case with the Twin Towers. No one died, the collapse looks different in the sense that it began at the bottom, and for some strange reason it appears officials were already contemplating to bring the building down. That having been said, the admission that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives, would be a huge breakthrough, this for various reasons:

It means that without the internet the government could have continued to lie to its people, spending millions to have a compromised investigative team (NIST) cover up the evidence. It means the mainstream media for some reason has not only refused to ask pertinent questions, but actively aided in the cover-up with irrational skepticism and ridicule. It means we need a whole new investigation into the collapse of the Twin Towers, because this investigation was carried out by the exact same team (NIST). It means we need reforms to the democratic process, because it will be very hard for the public to know who to trust to run a new investigation and how much faith to have in the mainstream media and newly-elected officials.

Follow structural engineer Tony Szamboti

I highly recommend people listen to interviews with structural engineer Tony Szamboti, certainly after reading this article. In my opinion, he's the best of all the engineers affiliated with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in explaining all the flaws in the NIST report about the Twin Towers and Building 7. He's also very straightforward, very down-to-earth, and doesn't seem to particularly care about the whole 9/11 "truth" circus (haven't heard any no-plane theories yet) - which I just love. It can be hard to follow his interviews, however, because beforehand one really needs to be familiar with:

the World Trade Center site layout;

the WTC 7 design features;

NIST's arguments regarding the WTC 7 collapse initiation;

terms as web, flange, seat, stiffener, and shear stud;

some of the relevant documentation.

While Szamboti does his best, it remains tough during interviews to paint a clear picture in people's minds of the building and all its components. His 2014 white paper is excellent, but is also focused on persons already quite familiar with the official NIST investigation. Certainly to me it made a world of difference listening to Szamboti's interviews and reading his white paper after learning the above points. I now find myself nodding along in agreement on pretty much every point he makes while before I went: "Wait, stiffener plates? How crucial are those?" Well, very crucial, and NIST had every reason to leave them out of their computer model. This article will allow anyone to reach that conclusion by themselves in the shortest amount of time possible. And then they should go back and listen to Szamboti.

November 13, 2010, structural engineer Tony Szamboti can be seen sitting on the right here. Bob McIlvaine, who lost his son on 9/11, is with him. This is several years before many of the facts discussed in the article were discovered.

NIST far more sensitive than 9/11 Commission

If it isn't clear at this point, none of this is my own research. I just looked at what persons as Tony Szamboti or a David Chandler said and went to gather and check up on all the relevant data. For many the molten steel, extremely high temperatures and some of the other evidence are enough to doubt the official story regarding the World Trade Center collapses, but realizing how utterly incompetent NIST has been in trying to come up with plausible explanations should add a whole new dimension to suspicions that there indeed was something in those buildings that was not supposed to be there.

On top of that, if we can demonstrate that NIST made crucial "mistakes" in their analyses of the building collapses (which we can), then it will be much easier to force a new investigation. It will also make it a bit safer for the mainstream media to cover the story, because all they have to do is point out these mistakes. At that point no one can accuse the journalists in question of being "conspiracy theorists" - the stigma everybody is afraid of.

That having been said, it is clear that the NIST report on the WTC collapses is much more sensitive than the 9/11 Commission report on intelligence failures and the extreme incompetence of President Bush, secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld, and General Mike Canavan of the FAA. While especially the first two individuals have received a degree of criticism over their irrational behavior on the morning of 9/11, no one in the media, mainstream and to a large extent even alternative, has dared to point out the glaring problems with the NIST report. NIST leaving out the stiffeners in their collapse initiation analyses should have made headlines around the world. But, as expected, nobody dared to touch it.

Understanding NIST's WTC 7 "collapse initiation model"

NIST collapse model for WTC 7: A single failure involving girder A2001 causes an 8-story internal collapse. As a result column 79 buckles laterally, resulting in all floors above girder A2001 collapsing also. From there the entire interior of the buildings comes down east to west, somehow leaving the exterior almost fully intact. NIST hardly explains anything beyond the initial collapse of girder A2001 and is only able to that when resorting to heavy manipulations.

The NIST investigation of the World Trade Center 7 collapse is even worse than the Twin Towers. Not a single piece of steel was retained for analysis; not even the reported "vaporized" steel FEMA recommended additional analysis on. As a result, the NIST computer model for WTC 7 is 100 percent theoretical. Now, if this model behaved realistically and answered our questions, that would be one thing. But it's actually so bad that it's hard not to get physically upset when watching NIST's WTC 7 collapse model. After a single failure, which happened with fireproofing fully intact and relatively little damage to the building, the entire interior of WTC 7 just flows apart like a waterfall. It's as if NIST forgot to insert all input data for the steel connections between the columns and floors throughout the building. The animation looks utterly disturbing and seems to make little sense. How can the entire core of the building fail while leaving the exterior fully intact? Unsurprisingly, when pressured with a FOIA, NIST blatantly refused to release the vast majority of its crucial files:

"We are, however, withholding 74,777 files (approximately 80% of all responsive records). The NIST Director determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety. This withheld data include remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model ... all input and results files of the LS-DYNA 47 story global collapse model, and all spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities." [1]

To understand the manipulations in the NIST investigation of the WTC 7 collapse, one first needs to be familiar with the floor plan and the impossible-to-dispute collapse progression of the building. On video we hear a loud boom, which, of course, is ignored by NIST. A second later the eastern end of the penthouse on top of WTC 7 falls through the building. For a few seconds nothing happens. Then the rest of the penthouse starts to sag from east to west. As soon as the west corner of the building visibly loses support, WTC 7 comes down in rapid fashion, even reaching free fall speed. The building disappears from view in about 6 seconds.

Now, look at the layout of the building. The eastern end of the penthouse sat right on top of column 79. This means that the NIST team was forced to find an explanation why column 79 failed first (or at least a column close to it). Then they had to explain, without resorting to explosives, why the rest of the building came down. For years theories involving structural damage and diesel fuel tanks inside the building made the rounds as being responsible for the collapse. However, NIST eventually was forced to conclude that "fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7" [2] and even that the structural damage, as had been argued by persons from the 9/11 Truth community from the beginning, was relatively insignificant:

"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. ... Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires." [3]

In addition to this, NIST's computer models showed that with fireproofing fully intact, none of the steel columns heated up to more than 300°C (570°F), at which point steel still maintains at least 97% of its strength. Certain beams did theoretically heat up to 600°C (1,100°F) in certain areas, but with the columns at full strength it was impossible to argue that weakening of the steel played an important role in the collapse.

NIST finally settled on thermal expansion at relatively low temperatures as being the reason for the collapse initiation. They did this by claiming fire expanded the relatively long-span 50-52 foot beams G3005, A3004, B3004, C3004 and K3004 (red beams on drawing above, top to bottom), pushing girder A2001 off its seat at column 79 and to an extent also at exterior column 44.

"Due to the effectiveness of the SFRM [fireproofing], the highest column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300°C (570°F), and only on the east side of the building did the floor beams reach or exceed about 600°C (1100°F). The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, primarily at or below 400°C (750°F), damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. The initiating local failure began the probable WTC 7 collapse sequence was the buckling of Column 79. This buckling arose from a process that occurred at temperatures at or below approximately 400°C (750°F), which are well below the temperatures considered in current practice for determining fire resistance ratings associated with significant loss of steel strength." [4]

When girder A2001 fell off its seat, the heat-mangled beams G3005, A3004, B3004, C3004 and K3004 came tumbling down with it. Because the fire had also weakened several floors below them, this segment of floor 13 managed to smash through the floors below it, all the way down to a reinforced floor 5. Lateral support for column 79 was removed over a eight story stretch due to this local collapse, resulting in the column buckling and a subsequent failure of floors all the way up to the penthouse. At this point rapid "progressive collapse" of the entire building set in. In the words of NIST:

"Floor 13 collapsed onto the floors below, causing a cascade of floor failures down to Floor 5. The floor failures left Column 79 laterally unsupported and it buckled, which was quickly followed by the buckling of Columns 80 and 81. The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7, not the floor failures. If column 79 had not buckled, due to a larger section of bracing, for instance, the floor failures would not have been sufficient to initiate ... global collapse." [5]

As is the case with the Twin Towers, this "global collapse" is not explained by NIST in any additional detail. That's just something their model, with all its secret input data, "reveals". NIST really only focuses in detail on the "collapse initiation sequence", which in their opinion began with the failure of girder A2001. Thus it should be clear why a credible scientific explanation as to how girder A2001 could have been pushed off its seat is absolutely essential to the credibility of the NIST investigation.

Key NIST omissions: 1 inch of seat width, stiffeners, lateral support beams

Unfortunately for NIST, after a successful FOIA request in 2011 for the shop fabrication drawings of Building 7, NIST was found to have omitted crucial data from its computer simulation model in order to (barely) reach enough lateral displacement for girder A2001 to have fallen off its seat. With one or more of this crucial data included, it appears to have been impossible for the girder in question to have failed, meaning that NIST would have to start its investigation all over again.

Crucial terms to understand the controversy surrounding the WTC 7 collapse. The shear studs fuse the beam with the concrete floor above, giving the building additional stiffness and helping to prevent lateral displacement. In this example the stiffeners primarily serve to prevent web crippling, but can also prevent the flanges from curling. Simply put, girders are the primary horizontal support system in steel buildings on which smaller, lighter beams are resting.

NIST assumed that the crucial column 79 seat, on which girder A2001 was resting, was 11 inches wide. Assuming there were no stiffeners at the end of girder A2001, NIST argued it would have failed after a lateral displacement of 5.5 inches, with the bottom flange curling upward and the girder sliding off the seat. According to NIST, at 600°C (1,100°F) the thermal heat expansion of beams G3005, A3004, B3004, C3004 and K3004 (red beams on drawing above, top to bottom) would have been 5.5 inches, theoretically just enough to initiate failure. Thus NIST assumed a 600°C temperature with a 5.5 inch thermal expansion, leading to girder A2001 sliding off its seat, followed by "global collapse". Case closed. But maybe not, because:

In June 2012 NIST was forced to admit that the seat, in fact, was 12 inches wide, requiring at least 6.25 inches of walk-off distance - not 5.5 inches, as NIST assumed in its WTC 7 report. Several months after being notified of this mistake, NIST vaguely explained: "The 5.5 in. dimension was incorrectly cited, as the 6.25 in. dimension accounted for the lateral walk-off distance. These changes correct typographical errors. The dimensions and lateral displacements used in the analyses were correct." [6]



A first major problem with this "typographical error" is that NIST hasn't provided calculations in its report showing that a thermal expansion of more than 5.5 inches of lateral travel could have taken place. On top of that, independent investigators as Tony Szamboti have determined that the beams couldn't have expanded more than 5.6 or 5.7 inches at 640°C (1,200°F), because above that temperature vertical sagging would overtake horizontal thermal expansion. [7]







It actually appears NIST was already in a bit of a pickle with the original 5.5. inches. Looking at the full 800-page NIST report, trying to find the exact calculation for the expected thermal expansion of the beams that supposedly pushed girder A2001 off its seat, and I have to conclude that it isn't in there. All I can personally find is one calculation of NIST revealing a thermal expansion of 4.5 inches at 600°C (1,100°F) in case of a steel beam that is 540 inches long. If we apply this same formula to a 624 inch (52 ft) beam, the NIST-reported length of the longest beams framing into girder A2001, we arrive at a thermal expansion of only 5.2 inches, a full 0.3 inches short of NIST's needed 5.5 inches of walk-off. On top of that, NIST clearly states in its final report that "the thermal expansion of the WTC 7 floor beams that initiated the probable collapse sequence occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400°C (750°F)." Only "some sections of the beams supporting 8, 12, 13, and 14 exceeded 600°C (1100°F)." [8] If the relevant beams holding up floor 13 didn't uniformly heat up to 600°C (1,100°F), with various sections much lower in temperature, how can we even get close to 5.5 inches of lateral travel? At an average temperature of 500°C (900°F) we're looking at a thermal expansion of only 4.3 inches, not even remotely enough for failure.



Update: Professor Colin Bailey and the Arup engineering firm in Great Britain turn out to have confirmed this discrepancy, when they wrote in their report, which was part of a court case against the WTC 7 Company: "To reach 5.5in the secondary beams will need to be heated to 650°C (assuming all the movement is pushing the girder and the secondary beams do not deflect)." The same report also makes the case that it is very unlikely that girder A2001 would have walked off its seats at columns 79 and 44, because, as their live tests demonstrated, it would be fully trapped between the two columns due to thermal expansion at 485°C or higher, in addition to "the 2in [side] plate fixed across column 79" (not to be confused with the stiffeners on the girder) and "the inside flanges of ... column [44]." [9] This report will hopefully be dealt with in an appendix to this article at some point, but clearly the NIST report is very flawed with regard to seat width and lateral walk-off travel. Why Arup is talking about 5.5 inches I don't even know, except that they copied NIST with this estimate of necessary lateral travel for failure to occur.







To continue, I guess because of the fact that NIST doesn't know how to make the 5.5 inches of lateral expansion, explains why their report never directly calculates the expected thermal expansion, but instead switches to complex calculations about forces acting on girder A2001 and how the shear studs on the beams could have been broken, allowing for maximum thermal expansion without any kind of lateral distortion. It really appears as if they simply have no answers and instead decided to put up a smoke screen.



As far as I'm aware, experts as Tony Szamboti haven't brought up the fact that NIST has refused to clearly demonstrate how they arrived at a theoretical thermal expansion of 5.5 inches or more, so possibly I'm missing something. However, what is certain is that NIST doesn't even come close to explaining a lateral travel of 6.25 inches. On top of that, it would probably have been a more realistic approach of NIST to allow for 5.6 or 5.75 inches of walk-off before failure. Of course, seeing how NIST even comes up short with the 5.5 inches of lateral travel and it's not hard to understand why they "accidentally" misrepresented the seat width and refused to include direct thermal expansion in inches for the beams in question.

It gets worse. Much worse. In October 2013, after a 19 month delay, NIST was forced to admit that they had left out the stiffeners at the end of girder A2001. [10] Looking at the increased seat width and the effect of the stiffeners, it now appears a walk-off distance of 10 inches would have been necessary for failure to occur. [11] Below a comparison can be found between the shop fabrication drawing of Frankel Steel Limited as included in the NIST report (left) and the original drawing (right). The omission is absolutely, stunningly incredible.







It is that NIST has admitted to it, otherwise I would have assumed that somebody was making things up. In fact, NIST admitted that it wasn't a mistake, but that they purposely left out the stiffeners: "The structural analyses of WTC 7 did not show any web crippling failures. Therefore, the web crippling plates did not need to be included in the models/analyses." [12] This is a blatant lie. In case of WTC 7, the purpose of these plates at the very end of the girder, on top of the seat and not going all the way up to the top flange, is very obvious: they prevent the bottom flange from curling upward when the girder is pushed laterally beyond its web. If this happens, the girder slides off, which is something building designers would want to prevent at all costs.



Below is a simulation of industry experts associated with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It demonstrates that girder A2001 would not have failed even at an unrealistic 6.25 inches of walk-off if the stiffeners had been included. One is almost forced to conclude that NIST purposely removed the stiffeners from its model after being unable to cause a failure. And, of course, they were desperate to create a failure.







In a July 11, 2014 letter, with a 27 month delay, NIST was forced to admit that it hadn't included in its simulation lateral support beams S3007, G3007 and K3007, which were attached to beam G3005. On pages 14 and 343 of NCSTAR1-9 we can find Cantor and Frankel drawings in which these beams are clearly listed, but looking at NIST models of the collapse, these beams cannot be found. NIST rationalized that their computer analyses showed that "G3005 did not fail laterally and therefore, the secondary beams S3007, G3007, and K3007--like the web stiffeners--had no bearing on the final analyses nor on the conclusions drawn..." [13]







While maybe less obvious than the stiffeners, this argument makes absolutely no sense. The NIST report itself explains how crucial the failure of beam G3005 and those next to it were in the collapse initiation: "Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8-27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79..." [14] Figure 8-27 (a) has been reproduced below on the left. Text has been added for clarification, along with the FOIA-released Cantor E12-13 floor drawing on the right.







The NIST figure only shows beam G3005 and its immediate neighbor, with beam G3005 being deformed the heaviest, in the lateral plane, indicating this beam began to fail first and may have affected the others. There's absolutely no way that the lateral support beams S3007, G3007 and K3007 would not have had a stabilizing effect on beam G3005. In fact, according to simulations of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, these lateral support beams would have required 16 times more force for beam G3005 to buckle. And if it hadn't buckled, quite possibly this segment of the 13th floor wouldn't have crashed all the way to the 5th floor, which resulted in the buckling of column 79 and the initiation of "global collapse". Leaving these lateral support beam out constitutes criminal negligence at the very least.

To summarize, it appears that at some point NIST scientists determined that girder A2001 must have failed and then began to manipulate their computer model by strategic omissions in order to make this failure happen:

a little less seat width here;

a couple of stiffeners less there;

take out those lateral support beams;

crank up that temperature;

and stretch the thermal expansion to its absolute theoretical maximum.

And voila, we have a failure!

Of course, this is not how things work. Considering the whole purpose of a computer model is to simulate real word processes that are too complex for humans to calculate by hand, one simply cannot leave out crucial building components at will. The job of the human being is to include as much relevant data as possible and let the computer sort out the results. We see the same thing happening with NIST's simulation of the Twin Tower collapses. They use isolated computer simulations with different input data, much of it secret and some of it fictional, and if they see something that supports the official story then they'll just use that. The adding of a fictional lateral force to simulate the bowing in of perimeter columns is probably the best example of that. [15]

Missing shear studs? The original debate

Early on in its investigation, NIST generally assumed that shear studs could be found on all beams and girders of WTC 7, including girder A2001. In its 2005 report on the entire WTC complex, NIST wrote: "Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs." [16] By the time the final report on WTC 7 came out, in 2008, NIST's position had changed to: "In WTC 7, no studs were installed on the girders (Cantor 1985)." [17] This change resulted in a degree of skepticism, even more so after it was found out that NIST left out crucial stiffener plates and lateral support beams in its computer model, and also forgot an inch of seat width for the seat on which girder A2001 was resting.

However, NIST did appear to have a point on this issue. To support their argument, NIST relied on the 1985 structural design drawings of Irwin Cantor, as well as the related building erection drawings of Frankel Steel. We have access to these drawings due to a 2011 FOIA request and, looking at them, we have to conclude that they do not show shear studs on girder A2001. Below the reader can see the Cantor drawing S-8 for floors 8 to 20 and 24 to 45. The amount of shear studs per beam are listed between "< >". Whatever the reason for this decision, all beams contain these shear studs, but not girder A2001.

For full Cantor S-8 drawing, click the image or click here

When we look at Frankel Steel WTC 7 erection drawing E12-13 for floors 12 and 13 of that same year - which was already depicted in the previous section of this article - we also can't find any shear studs on girder A2001. The crucial aspect of this drawing has been reproduced below:

For full Frankel E12-13 drawing, click the image or click here

Persons in the 9/11 Truth community have pointed to a number of sources to make the case that girder A2001 may possibly have contained shear studs. The first is the same Frankel E12-13 drawing, which at the bottom talks about "shear studs, field applied", indicating that shear studs were added or could have been added after girder A2001 was fabricated and had arrived on location. However, as the reader can see above, this same erection drawing does not list shear studs for girder A2001, so based on this information we have to conclude that they were not present.

For full Cantor S-8-10 drawing, click the image or click here

Secondly, researchers have pointed to the revised 10th floor framing plan of the Cantor drawings (S-8-10: 10th floor) that reveals a number of modifications to the ordinary framing plan (S-8: 8th-20th, 24th-45th). In this drawing we find 30 shear studs listed for girder A2001, along with a slightly increased number of shear studs for all the surrounding beams. Apparently these modifications were made to compensate for increased floor loads, but this hardly matters because floor 10 is not floor 13. In the Cantor drawings we also find modifications to the 19th and 20th floor, but also here no shear studs are listed for the girder in the same location as A2001 on the 13th floor. In other words: still no serious evidence of shear studs on girder A2001.

Members of the 9/11 Truth movement have also looked at the floor framing plans in a 1986 paper of John Salvarinas, Frankel Steel's project manager for WTC 7. It was published by the Canadian Structural Engineering Conference. Figure 5 of his paper, labeled "typical floor framing", reveals 30 shear studs throughout the building in the location of girder A2001 (above and below it). This is the same amount of shear studs listed on the Cantor S-8-10 modified structural drawing for floor 10, so one would think that it was at least considered as an option to put this amount of shear studs on the girders in the same location as A2001. But has this happened? When we look at the Salvarinas drawings it's easy to see that they are much simplified versions of the earlier-discussed structural drawings of Cantor and Franklin Steel. We can't rely on them and thus are forced to conclude that the situation is inconclusive as to whether or not shear studs were present on girder A2001. Of course, it would have been nice if NIST had included a basic reservation in its report instead of outright assuming there were no shear studs, but it's impossible to really start an argument here without additional data.

At this point there are only two conclusions we certainly can reach on potential shear studs on girder A2001:

NIST should have conducted interviews with WTC 7 project leaders and steel workers to confirm the presence or absence of shear studs. The fact that they didn't is rather suspect and really should be considered another instance of criminal negligence. The steel should never have been destroyed so quickly. If the steel was retained, not only could we have checked for shear studs, we would also have a better idea of the temperatures in this area of the building and the effects that they had. Unfortunately, all we are left with is a computer model.

Confirmed: NIST also omitted shear studs

Note: This section is a January 2016 update on the shear stud issue, based on a tip from Tony Szamboti - whom, by the way, I never conversed with before finishing this article and praising his work.

The fact that NIST did not include a basic reservation in its final WTC 7 report as to whether or not shear studs were present on girder A2001 is very suspicious, because the situation was not resolved at all. As it turns out, NIST had good reason to make it look as if the shear studs were not present, because actually, they were.

If we go back to the earlier-discussed Frankel E12-13 drawing for WTC 7's 12th and 13th floor and look at the bottom, we see the byline: "For additional studs see cust. dwg. S8 Rev. I."

A curious problem is that this Revision 1 drawing was not included in the 2011 FOIA release of the Cantor and Franklin drawings. It's equally strange that no public discussions were going on about it by this time, because structural engineering professor Colin G. Bailey of the University of Manchester in England had already been aware of the omitted shear studs for years. In an April 5, 2010 signed court statement on behalf of a group of corporate plaintiffs against 7 World Trade Center Company, Bailey wrote:

"Evidence discovered after June 15, 2009 revealed that, contrary to the information I had reviewed prior to that date, some shear studs were ultimately installed on each floor on the girder running between columns 79 and 44. This was done to increase the ability of this part of the structure to support an additional 10 psf load above the original design load. As a result, only 30 shear studs were installed..."

Further down in the court document "Cantor Drawing S-8 Revision I" is mentioned as the source of this information. [18] Engineer Ronald H. Brookman, who earlier received the Cantor and Franklin drawings through FOIA request, had also become aware of the existence of this drawing by March 19, 2012, when he wrote the following very rational words to NIST's FOIA & Privacy Act Officer Catherine S. Fletcher:

"Copies of the following drawings were obtained from the NIST FOIA office:



"- Irwin G. Cantor P.C., Structural Engineers (1985). Structural Design Drawings, 7 World Trade Center



"- Frankel Steel Limited (1985). Erection Drawings, 7 World Trade Center



"- Frankel Steel Limited (1985a). Fabrication Shop Drawings, 7 World Trade Center



"Specific [additional] questions include the following: ...



"1. ... Figure 5 of [the 1986 John Salvarinas paper] clearly shows 30 shear studs equally spaced along the girder at typical floors including floor 13. How did NIST confirm that shear studs were in fact omitted from the girder at floor 13?



"2. Frankel Steel drawings E8/9 through E20 and E24 through E44/45 all note: "FOR ADDITIONAL STUDS SEE CUST. DWG. S8 REV. I." Cantor sheet S-8 released by the NIST FOIA office includes revision H but not revision I. Sheet S-8-10 revision I shows 30 shear studs on the girder. ... Was sheet S-8 revision I included in the construction documents for this building?" [19]

I've not seen a photocopy of Frankel S-8 Revision I, but it seems very safe at this point to assume that the 1986 John Salvarinas paper and the original 2005 NIST report were accurate about the fact that 30 shear studs could be found on girder A2001. So, in addition to a reduced seat width, removed stiffeners and omitted lateral support beams, we now also have confirmation that NIST excluded 30 shear studs in its model for WTC 7. Is this another innocent mistake? It's getting increasingly hard to believe.

As one would expect, professor Colin Bailey and the Arup engineering firm he was working with came to the conclusion that girder A2001 would have collapsed anyway, largely focusing their theory on the failure of these shear studs due to flutes of WTC 7's metal decking not being filled with fire-proofing. However, discussing the Arup report here will only cause confusion. The important thing to remember here is that Arup proves NIST - which ran the only official investigation into the collapse of WTC 7 - wrong on the shear studs. And not just that, it also provides evidence that girder A2001 could not have been pushed off laterally (although Arup, of course, still claims girder A2001 collapsed during the cooling down phase). Those interested in the details might want to look up comments Tony Szamboti has been making on this study here and there.

The day NIST cried: admitting WTC 7's free fall collapse

One of the better known issues related to the WTC 7 collapse is that it partly came down at free fall speed. Back in 2008 when the final NIST report was about to be published, and years before we found out about missing stiffeners and the like, it was already clear that NIST scientists were doing their absolute best to obfuscate this fact. The reason is obvious. As NIST's Shyam Sunder inadvertently admitted: "free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." [20] How is this possible? A building, especially a steel one, should always put up resistance during a collapse. They shouldn't be coming down at roughly 85 kmh / 50 mph as if there is nothing underneath them. Free fall means that WTC 7 came down at a similar speed as when one would have thrown a nickel or block of concrete from the top of the building. While technically it doesn't absolutely rule out some sort of structural anomaly we haven't figured out yet, free fall is most definitely very compatible with explosives having been used to take out several floors worth of columns, beams and girders.

Here's how the story of free fall evolved: Somewhere around 2007 the NIST computer model predicted a collapse time of 5.4 seconds for the top 18 floors of WTC 7 to fall down. NIST scientists then picked a less-than-ideal video of the collapse and managed to calculate a 5.4 second collapse time, thus verifying their own model. The video in question is the one below on the left.

Subsequently NIST's arguing was that free fall of WTC 7 would have taken 3.9 seconds, thus with 5.4 seconds the building descended only at 40 percent (38.5 percent) of free fall speed. This bizarre position was absolutely untenable, however. In its August 2008 draft report NIST was "assuming that the descent speed was approximately constant." Even a 7-year-old can see that the descent speed is not constant. It's also clear to anyone who takes a brief look at the WTC 7 collapse that it came down in phases. And those who look really well can see that the collapse progresses from east to west. Only when the last section of the building loses structural support, the north-west corner, is there a sudden increase in the descent speed. In other words, it only makes sense to calculate the speed of each stage individually. But NIST refused to do that until major controversy erupted with the publication of its draft report on WTC 7.

Leading NIST investigators John Gross and Shyam Sunder were confronted about the free fall issue at an August 26, 2008 briefing on the WTC 7 draft report. Incredibly, both were stuttering and stammering to the extreme when asked to explain their positions. They simply couldn't rationalize their position and hardly even made eye contact with the audience when trying to answer these questions. Here's John Gross' response to the simple question of Dr. Steven Jones why the draft report stated about the WTC 7 collapse "that the descent speed was approximately constant" :

"Force of gravity ob- obviously is, uh, uh, the acceleration of gravity is, uh, what's, uh, at the driving force and, uhm, ah, our calculation was, uh, based on the amount of time from the, uh, top of the parapit, uh, to fall til it, uhm, ah, disappeared from view between the two buildings, uh, seen in the, uh, video. Uh, that, uh, time was established from the, uh, video, uhm, uh, by single frame, uhm, uhmmm, in search of the, uh, time that was down to 1/30 of a second, uhm, and then we do the same thing for when the top of the parapit disappeared. We found that, uh, that time, uhm, to be 5.4 seconds." [21]

David Chandler of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 then asked Shyam Sunder the following question:

"Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the north-west corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity [free fall]. Yet, your report contradicts this claim - claiming 40 percent slower than free fall based on a single datapoint. How can such a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?"

Sunder's first response? "Can you repeat the question, please?" It gets read out loud again. When the camera switches back, Sunder seems beyond nervous. He shifts about nervously, looking down without making eye contact with the public. His incoherent reply:

"Well, uhm, the, uh, first of all, gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure, at, applies, uh, applies to everybody, all bodies on, uh, on this, uh, particular, on, uh, this planet. Not just in Ground Zero. Uhm, the analysis shows there's a difference in time between free fall time and - free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the 17, uh, for the roofline of the video, to collapse down to 17 floors, that you actually can see in the video--below that you can't see anything in the video--is about 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows, and the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows, is that the time it took for that structural model to come down from the roofline all the way for those 17 floors to disappear, is 5.4 seconds. It's but 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual to happen, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case and you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place in which not everything was instantaneous." [22]

By November the whole collapse progression of World Trade Center 7 was overhauled. The 5.4 second constant descent at 40% the rate of free fall, was replaced by a three stage descent in which the middle stage consisted of a "free fall drop [which] continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s." [23] As can be seen below, I completely agree with a stage 1 collapse of 1.75 seconds in which the building descents only a few feet and still seems to have a degree of structural support. The 5.4 seconds for the 18 story descent to me really seems to be more like 4.9 seconds, but with the admission of free fall this really isn't that important an issue anymore.

While it is an absolute breakthrough that NIST admits that WTC 7 fell down at free fall speed, indicating there was absolutely no structural support from below, it still appears as if NIST is trying to hide the real implications of their calculations. First of all, they don't discuss these implications. And second, their model is giving the impression that WTC 7 followed some sort of natural progression towards free fall collapse. The only way they can maintain this position is by their use of a single datapoint near the center of the building's roof. This point is falling slightly while the north-west corner is still providing support to the rest of the building. What NIST should have done instead is measure the north-west corner separately. This would have revealed an almost sudden acceleration towards free fall speed. In the NIST graph below [24], I've added separate curves for the north-west corners of the penthouse and the WTC 7 roof. One can see the descent of WTC 7 was much less smooth than depicted by NIST.

The onset of collapse after the west corner failed was much more sudden than NIST portrays in its report.

I made this graph before watching the remainder of David Chandler's presentation on WTC 7's free fall. Turns out, he made the exact same observation: free fall took place suddenly, right after the last section of the building gave way. I'm quite sure that most readers will reach the exact same conclusion after a bit of measuring.

Maybe we should corner Shyam Sunder or John Gross once more and ask them where this sudden lack of structural support came from. If they have an explanation, they didn't put it in their final report.

Fire damage inconclusive

As already discussed at length, according to NIST, Building 7 fell at free fall rate because in its north-east corner floor 13 collapsed all the way down to floor 5, taking the floors in between with it. This led to a loss of lateral support for column 79, initiating "global collapse". Allegedly, the reason these additional floors were unable to resist the collapsing floor 13 was because they also had been weakened by fire. Here's how NIST explained things:

"The fires thermally weakened Floors 8 to 14. As Floor 13 fell onto the floor below, a cascade of floor failures continued until the damage reached the massive Floor 5 slab, leaving Column 79 without lateral support for nine floors." [25]

The 8th floor window on the far-left here was busted out Barry Jennings, who had been rescued at this point.

In the full 800-page NIST report on WTC 7 just about every known photo revealing fire on various lower floors of the building is listed. The two pictures above, some of the best around, were shot around 4 p.m., roughly 1 hour and 20 minutes before the collapse of the building at 5:20 p.m. One of the more interesting observations to make is that there appear to have been no fires at floors 9, 10 and 11, at least not in the north-east corner where the collapse initiated from. The main fire was on floors 12 and 13, which had all windows busted out with frequent fire being seeing. Fire was also slowly migrating to the north-east corner of the 8th floor. The window in the corner here was not busted out by fire, however. This had been done by Barry Jennings around 10:30 a.m. Michael Hess, the person who was with him, was filmed screaming for help from this window. Both were saved around noon.

It appears that shortly after 4 p.m. no one was allowed close to the building anymore, because what we see above is basically the last close-up footage of the north-east corner. That leaves us with quite a gap in which, of course, a lot can happen. For example, further analysis reveals that by 4:39 p.m. fire is also moving towards the north-east corner on floors 9 and certainly 11, having advanced from the center close to column 44, which is where girder A2001 at that point is still attached to on floor 13. The picture below reveals this progression:

Moving on in time, on the left in the compilation below the reader can see a shot of the north-east corner of Building 7 taken at 5:09 p.m., just over 10 minutes before collapse. It is included in NIST's full WTC 7 report, but for some strange reason at this point NIST ceased to identify specific floors and columns. It actually took me a while to verify that in the picture on the left we're indeed looking at the north-east corner (see picture on the right, shot during collapse initiation), because this is also not clear from the text describing the contents of the photo. The report talks about relatively unimportant aspects, such as the observed fire moving westward and a vehicle fire in front of the building. One would think that what is of primary importance to NIST is the absence of visible fire in the north-east corner. NIST included a still from the same angle in its report taken at 5:19 p.m., immediately before collapse. This one also doesn't show fire in the north-east section, with once again NIST forgetting to include data on columns, floors or the exact location. The report simply keeps talking about "a video shot from a building to the northwest of WTC 7", which is rather confusing. [26]

This is basically all the video and photographic evidence available when it comes to fire in the crucial north-east corner of Building 7. While certainly not non-existent, but at the same time we're not dealing with a raging inferno either, like the ones we witnessed in Madrid in 2005 and Beijing in 2009. The Madrid tower partially collapsed; the hotel in Beijing remained fully intact. The fact that Building 7 collapsed in seconds, symmetrically, and with only a fraction of the fire remains a little odd to say the least.

In case of WTC 7, the fire just slowly migrates around on each floor, busting windows out as it goes. NIST doesn't discuss fire on the east-side of the building, except for a period between 2:10 and 2:30 p.m., which reveals fire on the 12th and 13th floor in about half of the windows. The 11th floors also briefly experiences intense fire in two windows. Even at the time of collapse this east section produced by far the most smoke, but we have no evidence of simulteneous multi-floor infernos here. Everything is really obscured by thick black smoke.

Of course, these are exactly the angles NIST computer models calculated a relatively uniform fire spreading out from the south-east corner (fires were initiated in the south-west corner where the WTC 1 impacts occurred) around 3:30 p.m., heating up the crucial floor beams in the north-east corner at floors 8, 9, 11 and especially 12 and 13.

It's almost too perfect to be true. Maybe it is. Or, maybe it isn't. It's next to impossible to say how accurate these models are, certainly now that we have so much evidence that NIST has been manipulating them to get the results it wants. We can't look inside the building for the most part and we have virtually zero footage of the east and south sides of the building.

Ultimately one has to conclude that NIST's theory of multi-floor long-span beams thermally expanding at relatively low heat in the north-east corner of Building 7 is the only thing that fits with the available evidence. It conveniently allows NIST to sidestep typical red flags such as the fact that there:

wasn't a huge inferno;

wasn't a tremendous amount of heat;

wasn't any stripping of fireproofing;

wasn't any major structural damage.

At the same time it doesn't explain:

one or more loud booms being heard initiating the collapse;

the sudden, symmetrical collapse;

the free fall acceleration during the collapse;

the manipulations of NIST surrounding the walk-off of girder A2001;

the extreme heat and molten steel.

As with the shear studs, specifically on the fire issue I'll give NIST the benefit of the doubt. On many other issues, however, there's little reason to do that.

Unexplained extreme heat post-collapse

An article about the physical evidence for controlled demolition regarding World Trade Center 7 really wouldn't be complete without discussing the molten steel with "more than 2,800 degrees F [1,540°C]" [27] temperatures underneath the rubble of World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7. Strangely, WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6, while taking catastrophic damage and burning for hours, did not experience these anomalies. The fire was gone in hours; the smoke cleared within one or two days. But WTC 1, 2 and 7 kept suffering from these giant underground fires which lasted for months. The damage pattern to the buildings is also highly irregular. The following photograph, taken 6 days after 9/11, basically summarizes everything:

Close to 40 different reports on molten steel and extreme heat, many from firefighters and other 9/11 rescue workers, have been gathered in ISGP's original article Whatever Happened: Belief in WTC Explosives Widespread on 9/11 -- Until Authorities Denied It; Evidence of Huge Explosions, Rapid Flashes, and Liquefied Steel; NIST Report Based on Pure Fraud. WTC 7 is only rarely addressed separately from the Ground Zero site as a whole. But it has happened. For example, in Matt Siegel's 2002 documentary Three Nights at Ground Zero we hear:

"They've begun using heavy equipment to haul away the wreckage of Building Number 7, regardless of the fact that it is still burning. At the canteen we hear some of the truck drivers complaining that some of these girders are so hot they cause the beds of the dump trucks to crack and split open."

How hot do these girders have to be to cause this damage to the beds of the dump trucks? Hard to say. Was girder A2001 among them? Another good question. We don't know. While the July 2008 BBC documentary The Third Tower forgot to mention the "more than 2,800 degrees F [1,540°C]" temperatures and liquefied steel, it nevertheless did drop this minor bomb shell about WTC 7:

"When a NASA airplane flew over Ground Zero the temperatures recorded were remarkably high, the highest within Tower 7's footprint with 727 degrees Centigrade [1,350°F] [near the surface], yet this was five days after 9/11 and firemen had been spraying huge amounts of water on the site. And there are reports of red hot metal in the debris [shows video of a bright yellow/white glow in WTC 7 debris]."

The irrationally skeptical BBC documentary doesn't even attempt to explain this anomaly, without a doubt meaning they couldn't come up with one. As already discussed, according to the final NIST report, released a few months after this documentary:

"The highest column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300°C (570°F), and only on the east side of the building did the floor beams reach or exceed about 600°C (1100°F)."

There's no indication that with "exceed" NIST ever meant anything close to 727°C (1,350°F), certainly not beyond a few very isolated pockets. So how do we get these temperatures five days after collapse with well over 100,000 gallons of water sprayed on top of the rubble? And that's only the surface. Even the BBC documentary showed a brief clip of something glowing bright yellow underneath the surface of the rubble, most likely being one of these pockets of molten or formerly molten steel.

I recommend readers take a look at the quotes gathered about the WTC's molten steel and the extreme heat. It's definitely one of the most enigmatic aspects of the World Trade Center collapses that no one in the media or NIST has come up with a decent explanation for. Almost universally the phenomenon is ignored. The heat must have been generated around the time of collapse, because there's no visible evidence of it beforehand, apart from what appears to have been molten steel flowing down the side of the South Tower a few minutes before collapse.

Major explosions around 11:00 a.m. ignored, despite potentially ordinary explanation

In its final WTC 7 report NIST actually tries to dispel rumors that the building was demolished with explosives. However, it does this in complete cover-up fashion. For example, NIST doesn't discuss:

why they decided to explore this theory;

if controlled demolition consititutes a goverment cover up;

different manners how the building could have been rigged with convential and unconvential explosives;

how thermate could have been employed in the demolition;

the extreme heat and molten steel underneath the rubble, as was the case with the Twin Towers;

a whole host of explosions that could be heard from the morning until the moment of collapse.

In this section we'll focus on this last point. When it comes to evidence for explosives, NIST, as usual, took a completely theoretical approach and ignored all practical evidence. They started out by calculating that the minimum charge to sever a column of WTC 7 would have needed to be 9 lb of RDX, producing noise levels of 130-140 decibels. Subsequently NIST scientists claimed they were unable to find evidence for a blast this loud or windows being shattered by these explosions. Here is how they summarized the issue in their full WTC 7 report:

"NIST concluded that blast events could not have occurred and found no evidence of any blast events. The minimum explosive charge (lower bound) required to fail a critical column (i.e. Column 79) would have produced a pressure wave that would have broken windows on the north and east faces of the building near Column 79. Such a blast event would have resulted in a sound level of 130 to 140 decibels ... at a distance of at least half a mile (if unobstructed by surrounding buildings, for example, along Greenwich Street). There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on audio tracks of videotapes that recorded the WTC 7 collapse. ...



"In summary, the minimum charge (lower bound) [9 lb] required to fail a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have produced a pressure wave that would have broken windows on the north and east faces of the building near Column 79. The visual evidence did not show such a breakage pattern on any floor of WTC 7 as late as about 4:00 p.m. or above the 25th floor at the time of the building collapse initiation. Views of the northeast corner at the time of the collapse were obstructed by other buildings. ... Furthermore, for a shaped charge with an explosive weight equivalent to or higher than 9 lb (detonated in a single delay), the noise level at a distance of 1/2 mile would have been on the order of 130 dB to 140 dB..." [28]

This theoretical approach is really wonderful, except that NIST is lying when it claims loud explosions like these were not heard or captured on video. They most certainly were, but it appears that NIST and the mainstream media have been suppressing this material. First of all, there were reports about various post-collapse explosions in the media. For example, Dan Rather of CBS stated:

"And then at 10:28 AM Eastern time, the second tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. Then there was a fourth explosion; a fourth counted big explosion rocked the collapsed remains of the World Trade Center. That was at about 10:38 AM Eastern time." [29]

Around 11:00 a.m., 30 minutes after the collapse of the second tower, NBC news reported the views of fire chief Albert Turi, who at the time was of the opinion that bombs had aided in the collapse of the towers. The NBC host added:

"Now we are continuing to hear explosions. We are continuing to hear explosions here downtown. And what we've been told by some of the fire officials is that there are some gas lines that occasionally are exploding down there..." [30]

MSNBC reporter Ashley Benfield, primarily known for her observation at the time of the WTC 7 collapse at the end of the afternoon, was already at Ground Zero when the towers came down. Around 11:15 a.m., 45 minutes after the second tower had come down, she told her listeners from West Broadway, roughly 400 meters from WTC 7, that she'd heard no less than 4 explosions which sounded like car bombs:

"Yeah, hi, I'm just about 5 or 10 blocks north of the site where these two towers actually came down. We're obviously having a bit of trouble right now maintaining our location as we just heard one more explosion. That's around the 4th one we've heard. The police are telling us they're either car bombs or they are simply cars that have overheated that are exploding. But every time that happens, there's a flurry of activity and more emergency vehicles that come down this road."

While maybe not very well known, these reports are absolutely accurate. We know this from videos that are even less well known than these, the most important being one of Richard Peskin, who was shooting from his high-rise apartment building roughly 650 meters (700 yards) north of Ground Zero. His tape for WTC 7 starts just before 11:00, right after he heard a major explosion and noticed a new cloud of smoke rise from WTC 7's east side, where later in the day the collapse initiated from. In the minutes after that he captures what appear to be four additional explosions and reports on at least one other he failed to record. So we're talking at least 6 loud potential explosions in the minutes before and after 11:00 a.m. which NIST hasn't addressed. Peskin:

"[Start video; Peskin zoomed in to east corner of WTC 7:] A blast, explosion, or something, because now there is a lot of police activity and sirens and more smoke rising from the ground. [Smoke is rising from the side of WTC 7's east corner, but not exactly clear which smoke cloud Peskin means.] New smoke. So there was some kind of additional explosion, but I don't know what it was. Definitely. Smoke is rising from the ground. Maybe it was a federal building or something like that. Okay. Okay, sweetie, I'll call you later.



"[New take:] It's now 11 o'clock. We're still continuing to hear explosions. [Another crack or explosion can be heard.] I don't know what it is. A lot of smoke. ... [Another crack or explosion can be heard.] ... There's a fire [away from of WTC 7]. Maybe a car on fire. [Another crack or explosion can be heard.] ...



"[New take:] [Very loud crack/explosion and echo] It's another explosion. [Seems to be not much after 11:05, judging by the shadows.] ... [New take:] It's now a little bit after twelve."

Beginning of the Richard Peskin video after he heard an explosion at WTC 7 (strangely it starts with Peskin mid-way a sentence). Zoomed in here at the location where he sees new smoke arise, which is WTC 7's collapse initiation corner and also where Barry Jennings is trapped. My estimate is that the side of WTC 7 is visible here from roughly floor 14, immediately above the collapse floor.

The initial explosion right next to WTC 7, or possibly inside it, which Peskin failed to capture, appears to have been picked up by at least four other cameras that we are aware of. These cameras were operated by 9/11 "filmmaker" Gedeon Naudet, independent journalist Lucia Davis, firefighter Steve Spak and another unknown camera man. Possibly they picked up different explosions, but at the very least they were all captured in the same period around 11:00. We know this for a variety of reasons.

Naudet, still embedded with the Fire Department, survived the collapse of the North Tower. After helping to rescue a victim of the collapse, he sought shelter in a cafeteria. Within minutes he walks out again to find his brother, Jules, but is turned away by local police. After a couple minutes of walking to the north-west, roughly 500 meters (550 yards) away from WTC 7, he captures a loud blast and echo, despite having his camera aimed in the opposite direction.

Gedeon Naudet in the 2002 documentary '9/11: The Filmmakers'. He captures a huge explosion around 11:50 a.m. 500 meters (550 yards) to the north-west of WTC 7. It's easy to miss unless you know what to look for.

Firefighter Steve Spak was on the opposite side of Naudet at the time of this explosion. He was standing right behind St. Paul's Cathedral, aiming his camera to a mountain of smoke coming from Ground Zero. While the smoke obscured WTC 7, this is the direction he was looking in when a very loud explosion was recorded coming from somewhere in this vicinity.

Firefighter Steve Spak video. WTC 7 is located about 300 meters directly behind St. Paul's Chapel. The dust from the collapse of WTC 1 obscures everything at this point.

Lucia Davis was located immediately in between Steve Spak and Gedeon Naudet when this explosion occurred. Located on the corner of Murray Street and West Broadway, she was also the closest, only being roughly 150 meters (165 yards) north of WTC 7. As a result, she also captures the blast with incredible intensity. Interestingly enough, at this moment Davis is filming police officers at a phone booth. One of the officers comes walking towards them right after the explosion and says: "We gotta get back. Seven's exploding." The explosion also comes from the location of WTC 7, with everybody looking in that direction.

The account of Lucia Davis was broadcasted by NBC News. She filmed the North Tower collapse from West Broadway where she soon was forced to hide from the smoke inside the Elixir Juice Bar at no. 95. After the dust began to clear, she walked towards Ground Zero, capturing on video burning cars from roughly 100 meters (110 yards) north from WTC 7. This put her right at the spot where this huge blast was captured, but, predictably, NBC News did not broadcast this segment! We only know about it because somehow the clip ended up on Youtube. The clip was also used in the relatively obscure documentary 9/11: Stories From The City, but the blast is partly muted here due to a voice-over.

The Lucia Davis clip can be timed by the angle of the shadows (see image below, upper left). My own estimate is an azimuth of about 135-135.5°, which, according a Naval Observatory calculator for September 11, 2001 in New York City would correspond with a time of about 10:53 a.m. [31] This first perfectly with the video of Richard Peskin, who reported an initial loud explosion on the east side of WTC 7 minutes before 11:00 a.m., followed by several additional explosions.

The azimuth/time calculation also came in wonderfully useful with timing the Barry Jennings interview (above, remaining pictures), recorded roughly 300 meters (330 yards) north of WTC 7 at the north-west corner West Broadway and Chambers Street. A basic calculation reveals it was recorded in the minutes surrounding 12:30 p.m. [32], roughly 15 to 20 minutes after Jennings and Hess had been rescued from WTC 7. [33] Looking at his description of having been trapped for about an hour after an explosion inside the building [34], with Hess placing it at about one and a half hour [35], one has to conclude that it is quite compatible with the recorded and reported explosions around 11:00. More about Jennings later.

This use of the sun's position also turned out to come in handy with other video clips. A clip from an unknown news station which recorded a loud explosion reveals pretty much the same azimuth, proving it was either same explosion or one that followed quickly thereafter.

Having said all that, it most certainly is possible that the explosions were caused by burning fuel tanks that exploded. If these are largely empty and therefore filled with gas, this is a distinct possibility. We know that many cars, including a number of busses, were on fire immediately to the east of Building 7 right after the North Tower collapsed. NIST assumes that a "substantial numbers of burning sources capable of igniting fires" reached the ground in this area and set both the cars and Building 7 on fire. [36]

This conclusion of NIST sounds very reasonable. Why then do they ignore the loud blast noises that emanated from this area? On the few pictures available I don't see evidence of high explosives going off. Windows in the neighborhood all seem to be intact and there appear to be no circular debris fields. It can even be argued that Richard Peskin captured smoke rising from the street and not from a window in the east section of Building 7. The destruction by fire is still incredible though. None of the surviving firefighters trapped in the dust cloud talked about being surrounded by burning particles. It's still possible though. So maybe we should have the testimonies of the persons operating the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) bus, which was located here at the corner of West Broadway and Barclay Street. Mayor Giuliani and his aides were literally trapped a few feet away at 75 Barclay Street. They may also shed a little additional light on what exactly was going here at the time of the North Tower collapse.

We can basically speculate forever without more information. From the available videos we can't tell precisely where the blasts originated from and whether they were explosives or gas tanks (or gas lines, or maybe even water pipes being targeted with explosives, wherever all of these were located). High explosive detonations tend to have an unusually deep base sound and quite literally vibrate the whole inside of your body when they go off. It can be a very intimidating experience. Then again, how many people ever specifically heard a fuel tank explode/deflagrate? I certainly never heard the latter. And while it's possible in theory, I never heard about it happening either, apart from the movies.

One thing we can say for certain is that NIST did the public a disservice by ignoring these loud explosions that occurred around 11:00 a.m. They should have asked witnesses about them and try to pinpoint the exact source.

Ignored explosions in the afternoon and at collapse

More explosions actually occurred in the afternoon, after burning cars in the neighborhood were put out. For example, another explosion is captured just outside WTC 7 as firemen are walking away north, one of them responsing to the noise with "Keep your eyes on that building. It's gonna blow up." Looking at the projection of shadows, this event transpired around 14:45 p.m., assuming the workers were walking north along Greenwich Street. [37] Interestingly, it is at this point that fire chief Daniel Nigro instated a collapse zone around the building. [38] The boom is less loud than the one caputured by Lucia Davis.

Finally, as we end up at the moment WTC 7 collapses, at 5:20 a.m., it appears more explosions have been suppressed by the media. Almost all videos of the collapse contain no sound or start with the collapse already in progress. There's one major exception to this, the CBS video analyzed below. It reveals a loud explosion literally one second before the penthouse on top of WTC 7 collapses through the building.

Click on image to watch the video. The audio here has simply been extracted from the video and loaded into Adobe Audition without any editing. Anybody can do it.

The above video is absolutely incredible. The initial bang is louder than the collapse itself. Does it meet the 130-140 dB treshold of NIST? Hard to say, but it is beyond suspicious, of course, that NIST has refused to even mention this explosion in its report. After a little analyzing and cross-referencing with another video, it can also be said for certain that it is this same exact explosion that was caught on the live MSNBC broadcast of Ashleigh Banfield, who was filming from a slightly greater distance on the north-eastern end of the building. She was about 350 meters (400 yards) away.

Click on the right to watch the Asleigh Banfield MSNBC video and on the left to view the clip used as a control.

The calculated time of 8.1 and 8.7 seconds between the loud boom and collapse initiation between respectively the CBS and MSNBC videos isn't a whole lot, considering how tricky it can be to determine the exact moment of the collapse initiation from different angles and with shaky cameras, apart from a small difference in distance that the sound needs to travel. It's quite safe to say that it is certain that the noise picked up by Banfield is the same as the CBS camera.

Until now we have only discussed the explosion initiating collapse. While this is quite a stunning revelation already, there may actually have been more of these explosions at the time of collapse, although they appear to have been somewhat softer. For example, the following collapse video (left) is very popular on Youtube. The camera is located right next to the "CBS dub5 09" one that can be seen above, which loudly captured the initial explosion before the penthouse went down. Strangely, while this camera was located on a stand with a much more sensitive microphone for background noise, for some strange reason it seems it only began to film the collapse by the time it was already in progression, rendering it useless for analysis. Or maybe not. Rewatching the video 9/11: The Filmmakers of the Naudet brothers, it turns out that the clip most likely originated from this documentary. But in this documentary, the audio track of the clip actually seems to begin a second before it fades over into the actual video shot. And in this unseen but certainly heard preceding second it appears as if we can hear a double explosion. Just click on the image below to watch the video:

Click on one of the WTC 7 images to watch the relevant video clip.

Behind the image on the right another video clip can be found that captures the collapse of WTC 7 from very close by, from right in front of the building. It was shot by Mike Hernandez of CBS news. Bizarrely, also in this case the video starts when WTC 7 is already in full collapse. Even if we look at the whole FOIA release on Youtube, it appears Hernandaz only began to film when WTC 7 was already coming down. How likely is this, considering the camera seems to have been in position from the very first frame with notification having been given on numerous occasions that the building was about to come down. In any case, from this angle we don't hear a continuous collapse. Instead we hear some kind of metallic-sounding "Clug! Clug!" followed by: "Kaboom!" Because the building is coming down, one can always argue that this is simply the noise of the collapsing building, but to honest, I'm far from sure. Certainly if this huge, deep "kaboom" at the end was softer or equal to the explosion that initiated the collapse, it seems obvious why this sound is covered up. On top of that, the metallic-sounding "Clug! Clug!" noise is quite reminiscent of the metallic "Rooom!" noise initiating the collapse of the South Tower in the Sorensen video.

Unfortunately, pretty much no witness accounts have been written down from the hundreds of people close to WTC 7 when it collapsed. Witnesses who came out later, primarily first responder Kevin McPadden, who spoke about a count-down, I tend to distrust. We basically only have two interesting accounts that appear to be reliable. The first is from a person with the name Daryl, interviewed live on 9/11 by 1010 WINS NYC News Radio immediately after the collapse of WTC 7. He described the initial "clap of thunder" captured on video, but also appears to have had a good view on the bottom floors of WTC 7 right at collapse initiation. To this day, we don't have available a video showing the collapse initiation at the lower floors. Mike Hernandez was in a good position to capture it, as well as anyone around him, but somehow apparently everyone here only began filming with the collapse already in progress. In any case, Daryl talked about how "the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that", but without another interview and without video we all have to use our imagination as to what exactly he meant (how fast the progression, which floors exactly, and how violent):

"We were watching the building [WTC 7] as it was on fire - the bottom floors of the building were on fire. And we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. We turned around and we were shocked to see that the building was, what looked like a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busting out [as the penthouse crashed through the building]. It was horrifying. And then, you know, about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that."

The second account that is very interesting comes from Peter DeMarco, a journalist for New York Daily News and later for the Boston Globe. He seems to imply controlled demolition took place. It was not captured live on 9/11, but recorded in the 2002 mainstream book At Ground Zero: Young Reporters Who Were There Tell Their Stories, p. 97:

"[T]here was a rumble [coming from WTC7, which was captured on video a second before collapse initiation]. ... Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the building sunk into a rising cloud of gray."

If his "Pop! Pop! Pop!" sound is the same as what I describe as "Clug! Clug! Kaboom!" based on the Mike Hernandez video remains to be seen. It's a total travesty that witness accounts were not gathered en masse immediately after the WTC 7 collapse. And it's completely bizarre that we have no video of the WTC 7 collapse in its entirety, complete with proper audio recording. Of course, it's quite possible that this has been prevented on purpose.

Barry Jennings and Michael Hess: simply trapped by collapsing towers

Michael Hess, screaming for help from WTC 7's north-east corner on the 8th floor. Barry Jennings busted out the window.

Earlier, based on the stance of the sun, we demonstrated that Barry Jennings' first interview with the media on 9/11 took place within minutes of 12:30 p.m. This was at the intersection of West Broadway and Chambers Street, roughly 300 meters (330 yards) north of World Trade Center 7. This fits perfectly with Jennings, along with Giuliani's chief lawyer Michael Hess, having been rescued from this building 15 minutes earlier, around 12:15 p.m.

For those not familiar with the story of Jennings and Hess, when interviewed live on 9/11 both independently explained that some kind of explosion happened around the 8th floor of World Trade Center 7, trapping them inside the building. On 9/11, Jennings explained: "We made it to the eight floor. Big explosion. Blew us back into the eight floor. ... I took a fire extinguisher and busted a window out. ... They couldn't get to us for an hour, because they couldn't find us." [39] Hess added: "I walked down to the 8th floor and there was an explosion and we've been trapped on the 8th floor with thick smoke all around us for about an hour-and-a-half." [40] The firefighter who stayed back with Jennings for the interview (a group of firefighters could be seen in the clip returning to WTC 7) made things even more enigmatic when he stated: "Both staircases, the backside was blown away. There was no way to access. We couldn't get to them." [41]

Obviously, most people looking at these statements would like to have a little clarification, not just because an explosion around the the 8th floor of Building 7 is not supposed to have happened, but especially because of widespread suspicions that explosives and thermate were used to bring down the three World Trade Center towers. When we look a little deeper in the case, however, it appears there's not a whole lot of mystery here.

For starters, Jennings' later claim that he arrived at WTC 7 around 9:00 a.m. [42], even before the second plane impact, appears to be a blatant lie. There's every indication that Jennings and Hess entered Building 7 around the time of the Pentagon impact at 9:37 a.m. The timeline is a little vague on this (quite possibly on purpose), but there's every appearance that within roughly 2 minutes of this event OEM deputy director Richard Rotanz was informed of a potential third plane in the air heading for New York City. [43] He immediately ordered an evacuation of WTC 7's OEM bunker, the only location in the building still staffed at that point. Within minutes the third plane turned out to be false alarm, but the OEM bunker was not reactivated at the 23rd floor. Instead, a temporary OEM command center and triage was set up in the lobby [44], with an OEM bus soon operating at the north-east corner of WTC 7, on Barclay Street, right next to 75 Barclay, where mayor Giuliani was operating from. [45]

The reason that Hess and Jennings must have entered the building around this time, is because by the time they got up to the OEM bunker on the 23rd floor the doors were locked. When they got back up, with security opening the door for them, they find out that the persons who were there had left in a hurry: hot coffee and half-eaten sandwiches could be found at desks. They stayed for at least a few minutes, with Jennings making a few calls to his superiors. He's told the bunker was evacuated and he needs to get out too. Before they get to the elevators, there's an "explosion" with the lights in the building flickering. The elevators refuse to work from that point on, so Hess and Jennings take the stairs to get back down. [46]

Meanwhile, the dust cloud of the South Tower broke the glass facade of Building 7's lobby and buried it in several feet of rubble and dust. People had to run for their lives here, but, according to EMS chief John Peruggia, of the 45 people left in the lobby at that point, everybody got out alive. [47]

The biggest anomaly in the account of Hess and Jennings is that it apparently took them a full 30 minutes to descend just 15 to 17 floors. Part of the explanation might be that Jennings' wasn't the slimmest person in the world and Hess not the youngest. Another piece of the puzzle might be contained in the account of a security officer who descended the building at the same time from the 30th floor, apparently in WTC 7's other stairwell. When he got to the 7th floor, he couldn't see or breathe anymore. Like Jennings and Hess, he eventually moved to the north side of the building to call for help, only one floor lower and in the center of the building. [48] If one stairwell was so clogged up with dust that it was impossible to breathe for a seemingly quite fit security officer (voluntarily walked up all the way to the 30th floor), then it's quite likely that the same was true for the other stairwell. The dust could have slowed the movement of Jennings and Hess and quite possibly stalled it by the time of the second collapse.

The fact that Hess and Jennings interpreted the collapse of the South Tower and North Tower as explosions is not that unusual. Having read about 100 detailed survivor accounts of firefighters, it was quite common for those going up the North Tower or walking in any of the other buildings when the South Tower collapsed, to think that one or more massive bombs were going off, or that another plane impacted the World Trade Center complex. For example, here's the account of firefighter John Malley, whose team probably wouldn't have survived if they'd been send to the South Tower a few seconds earlier. It just happens to be the latest example I ran across:

"We got our assignment to work the 75th floor and above of the South Tower. ... As we walked through those revolving doors [of the Vista Hotel towards the South Tower], that's when we felt the rumble. I felt the rumbling, and then I felt the force coming at me. I was like, what the hell is that? In my mind it was a bomb going off."

Jennings and Hess were interviewed literally 15 minutes after they were rescued, only got to talk for a few seconds, hardly could believe they were still alive, so they didn't really have a chance to analyze their experiences. They heard a loud noise, followed by tons of debris hitting their building, and a WTC 7 lobby and stairwell being hit even harder with dust and debris than during the first collapse. Their misinterpretation is quite understandable.

It should actually be quite easy to confirm the views of Jennings and Hess after they had some time to integrate their experiences with what they learned through the media happened that day. NIST conducted interviews with Hess and Jennings in 2004, but never released the transcripts. Strangely, while especially researchers affiliated with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have successfully filed a number of FOIA requests, no one has apparently gone after these interviews. We only have a summary in the full NIST report which describes the above version of events. [49] Granted, Hess was interviewed by the BBC in 2008, but this interview did not clarify a number of key questions. More on this in the next section.

BBC psywar: Barry Jennings, Frank Papalia, etc.

Undoubtedly the most bizarre aspect of the whole Barry Jennings saga transpired in 2007 and 2008. First, in a June 2007 interview, Barry Jennings is lying to Alex Jones and the Loose Change crew that he was already on the 23rd floor of WTC 7's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) at the time the second plane hit at 9:03 a.m., at which point he notices that the "bunker" has already been hastily evacuated. That's simply impossible considering the described timeline of events and the fact that the primary people underway to activate the OEM bunker, FDNY captain Abdo Nahmod and EMT Richard Zarrillo, are still underway - driving west on the Brooklyn Bridge - when the second plane impacts. They park their car, walk over to WTC 7 over Vesey street through bodies and debris, and go up WTC 7. They join people who actually already have activated the bunker in the mean time, but are forced to evacuate within 10 minutes because it is thought that a third plane is inbound.

We also have the account of their immediate superior John Peruggia, who was driving north through the Battery Tunnel when the second plane impacted at 9:03 a.m. Perrugia parks his car some distance from the WTC complex, puts on his gear and walks up West Street towards the WTC complex. He talks to Chief Ganci in front of WTC 1 and by the time he arrives at WTC 7, the OEM bunker of Zarillo and Nahmod already is in the process of being evacuated over the reports of a third plane.

NYFD Captain James Yakimovich has told the exact same story. Yakimovich aided police officers and EMT workers with the treatment and evacuation of citizens wounded from debris coming down with the second plane impact. Soon after, he ran into Peruggia in front of WTC 1, who allowed him to go up to OEM because Yakimovich had experience here. Upon arrival at the 23rd floor of OEM, the evacuation order had just been given. Yakimovich went out, joined Engine 10, and barely survived to collapse of the South Tower soon after. [50]

So here we have very clear and very trustworthy information that rescue workers were entering and activating the OEM bunker until an evacuation order was given some time after 9:30 a.m. Looking at a good number of other firefighter accounts and statements of the director and deputy director of OEM, this warning was spread around 9:35-9:45 a.m., depending on how far back witnesses were located in the line of communication. So why on Earth was Jennings (as well as Hess) claiming that the bunker had already been evacuated before the second plane impacted at 9:03 a.m.? That absolutely makes no sense and doesn't fit with any other account that we know of. Yes, tenants and employees were allowed to leave, and certainly were ordered to do so after the second impact, but this had nothing to do with the firefighters and other rescue workers coming into the scene.

That's not all. Jennings talks about the power going out around the time of the second plane impact (not reported by anyone else), going down via the stairwell (with Hess), only to get trapped inside the building after an explosion on the 6th floor (earlier he talked about the 8th floor) takes out the stairwell. All this supposedly happened before the first collapse of the WTC towers, because Jennings specifically describes how the firefighters who attempted to rescue him ran from the scene twice as each building came down. [51] This makes no sense at all, because A) at the approximate time he gives, rescue workers either were still moving up to the OEM bunker or, after a brief evacuation, reactivating the OEM operation at the lobby of WTC 7 (around 9:45-9:50 a.m.). Let's face it, there's absolutely no doubt at this point that Jennings (as well as Hess) was lying. This is even clearer when we look at Jennings' statement that he had to walk over dead bodies in the lobby when he was finally rescued by firefighters later in the day. The fact is: no one died at WTC 7. Really the only remaining question here is: Why did Barry Jennings lie?

Barry Jennings: 9/11 "Truth" implies he was assassinated. His apparent daughter-in-law Dominique claimed he died of leukemia. [52] If true, one wonders at which point he knew he was going to die. Whatever the case, Jennings clearly lied about his experiences at WTC 7.

According to disinformative no-planers Alex Jones and the Loose Change crew, Jennings is threatened by his bosses that he will get fired, or worse, if the interview is released. It is decided not to include the material in the Loose Change: Final Cut version, but soon the BBC's Guy Smith learns about the interview Jennings has given and decides to interview him for a new documentary he his working on: The Third Tower, which is eventually released in mid 2008. Alex Jones and Dylan Avery (Loose Change) are confronted with statements Jennings makes to the BBC. [52] All of a sudden Jennings doesn't believe in a government conspiracy anymore and, because no one died at WTC 7, tries to take back his claim that he walked over dead bodies. [53] When it comes to the collapsing stairwell, it is simply not clear what precisely happened. His description is just too vague, but certainly when he says "When I reached down to the 6th floor, there was this eerie sound, the whole building went dark, and the staircase that I was standing on gave way," it seems to indicate there wasn't a bomb underneath the stairwell. Bombs don't make an eerie sound. The collapse of the North Tower outside did, at least that's how many people described the sound.

All in all, Jennings is very vague about his experiences, with the BBC team who made The Third Tower possessing some of the worst investigative skills possible. The gaps in logic that can be spotted in the 58 minute documentary are considerable. What follows is a partial list:

They don't allow OEM deputy director Richard Rotanz to explicitly describe when exactly he provided the evacuation order, which is sloppy, because there has always been controversy over this (although ISGP has rather convincingly narrowed it down to about 9:37 a.m., the same time as the Pentagon approach and impact)



The BBC claims Jennings was trapped in the towers for three hours. That seems to imply that they agree with Jennings' statement to the Loose Change crew that he entered WTC 7 around 9:00-9:15 a.m. Also, to this day 9/11 truthers are falsely trying to prove that Jennings was rescued before noon. So the BBC not clearly establishing how long Jennings was in the building and from which to which time is very sloppy. Jennings couldn't have entered before 9:37 a.m., around which time the evacuation order was given, and can only considered to have been trapped after the first collapse at 9:59 a.m. He was rescued around 12:15 p.m. That comes down to 2 hours and 15 minutes.



Jennings claims he was "jumping landings" as he descended the stairs of WTC 7. If so, how is it possible that it took him 30 minutes, the time between the two collapses, to descend just 17 floors? The BBC should have asked him.

as he descended the stairs of WTC 7. If so, how is it possible that it took him 30 minutes, the time between the two collapses, to descend just 17 floors? The BBC should have asked him.

They don't force Jennings to explain his "explosion" beyond "like a boom!"

beyond

They don't compare the account of Jennings with the person who was with him, Michael Hess. The BBC interviews Hess separately in 2008. He explains that the damage in the stairwell was caused by the collapsing towers, but does admit that at the time he thought "there had been an explosion in the basement." In another curious twist, Hess explains that immediately after the shaking, their "stairwell ran into a wall" , implying that this wall had come down during the collapse of the North Tower. The BBC never asks why this account differs from Jennings' and never asks how the firefighters were able to reach them. [54]

In another curious twist, Hess explains that immediately after the shaking, their , implying that this wall had come down during the collapse of the North Tower. The BBC never asks why this account differs from Jennings' and never asks how the firefighters were able to reach them. [54]

The BBC doesn't try to identify the "one particular engineer" who predicted to the New York Fire Department the collapse of Building 7 five hours in advance. They also forget to identify the members of Richard Rotanz's team who inspected the inside of Building 7 around 12:30 p.m.

who predicted to the New York Fire Department the collapse of Building 7 five hours in advance. They also forget to identify the members of Richard Rotanz's team who inspected the inside of Building 7 around 12:30 p.m.

The BBC keeps focusing on so-called massive damage and fire, but NIST could already explain to them at this point that the WTC 7 collapse was a unique case of catastrophic low-heat thermal expansion in the north-east corner on the 13th floor. Damage to the building from the North Tower coming down played no role in the collapse and neither did fires in other parts of the building.



They explain that the sprinklers failed in Tower 7, but forget to distinguish between the low, mid, and high zone. This is sloppy, even more so because the "catastrophic" fires they talk about in the mid and upper parts of the building were dowsed by the early afternoon and never spotted again.



Steven Jones is talking about a dust sample taken from within 20 minutes after the collapse of the North Tower by Frank Delessio, who is also interviewed. The BBC subsequently explains that previously-molten iron-rich spheres in Steven Jones' dust samples "could have come from cutting torches used after 9/11 to clear the site or from any building work before." Well, I guess that's that. Maybe the BBC should have put in some resources to actually rule out their own theory, because immediately after Jones states that this isn't possible due to the presence of aluminum (and red chips). The BBC doesn't try to debunk the aluminum claim. Instead, Mark Loizeaux is brought on stage, who highly unprofessionally ridicules thermite theories.

of the North Tower by Frank Delessio, who is also interviewed. The BBC subsequently explains that previously-molten iron-rich spheres in Steven Jones' dust samples Well, I guess that's that. Maybe the BBC should have put in some resources to actually rule out their own theory, because immediately after Jones states that this isn't possible due to the presence of aluminum (and red chips). The BBC doesn't try to debunk the aluminum claim. Instead, Mark Loizeaux is brought on stage, who highly unprofessionally ridicules thermite theories.

They talk about the extreme heat near the surface of Building 7, measured at 726 ° C (1,350 ° F) after five days of spraying the rubble with a huge amount of water. The BBC doesn't expain how this is possible. They should, because, according to NIST, none of the steel columns of WTC 7 were heated beyond 300 ° C (570 ° F) and only a very small fraction of the floor beams (theoretically) reached temperatures a little over 600 ° C (1100°F).

C (1,350 F) after five days of spraying the rubble with a huge amount of water. The BBC doesn't expain how this is possible. They should, because, according to NIST, none of the steel columns of WTC 7 were heated beyond 300 C (570 F) and only a very small fraction of the floor beams (theoretically) reached temperatures a little over 600 C (1100°F).

Not anywhere in the documentary do they mention the "more than 2,800 degrees F [1,540° C ]" underground temperatures and the presence of molten steel and concrete.

C underground temperatures and the presence of molten steel and concrete.

They don't explain how steel that has been completely eroded away could have been cooking for many weeks in the rubble in the presence of pulverized sulfur-containing gypsum wallboard. Where did the heat come from? Also, they don't test to what extend gypsum wallboard could affect steel in the long-run. An independently conducted test by engineer Jonathan H. Cole revealed that a steel beam completely (and unrealistically) encased in gypsum wall board and immersed in fire for 24 hours was left unaffected apart from discolorization due to the heat. The BBC needs to dig deeper into this.



The BBC shows a clip of demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who assumed WTC 7 was professionally demolished. The narrator then states: "But it's not a view shared by other demolition experts." One would actually expect to hear at this point the views of several other demolition experts. But no, the BBC only brings up Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who was involved in cleaning up the WTC debris. On top of that, Loizeaux just ridicules. Like NIST, he has no clear explanation of how WTC 7 fell.

One would actually expect to hear at this point the views of several other demolition experts. But no, the BBC only brings up Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who was involved in cleaning up the WTC debris. On top of that, Loizeaux just ridicules. Like NIST, he has no clear explanation of how WTC 7 fell.

The only low-level firefighter used by the BBC to ridicule conspiracy theories surrounding Building 7, Frank Papalia, turns out to be a partner in the Global Security Group, set up immediately after 9/11 to cash in on the new War on Terror. It is ran by David Katz, a former DEA laison with the Israeli Mossad and Shin Bet. On top of that, Katz has been accused of illegally importing Afghan heroin with the head of the DEA's Special Operations Division. Seriously, of all the hundreds of surviving firefighters of 9/11, the BBC just had to pick this one? That's just crazy. Papalia has also given at least one additional interview to an organized skeptics group in which he exhibited a complete lack of understanding of why Building 7 came down. [55]



Truthers are given much less attention than skeptics. In the former category we have Dylan Avery, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, Scott Grainger, Kamal Obeid, Danny Jowenko, Jennings (somewhat), Luke Rudkowski and Brian Kenny. Many of these persons only appear for 5 seconds or so and three of them are young, uneducated persons. In case of Rudkowski and Kenny, they aren't allowed to bring up any facts, which is probably best considering Rudkowski founded We Are Change in 2006 and was the (almost teenage) star of Alex Jones' film The 9/11 Chronicles, which documented New York City's We Are Change activism in the 2006-2007 period. Rudkowski is one of the most important activists, especially during the 2007 election season run up, confronting Zbigniew Brzezinski, David Rockefeller, Henery Kissinger, Dick Cheney, Obama, the Clintons and other leading past and present politicians with 9/11 Truth questions. Together with Alex Jones he has also coordinated large 9/11 Truth protests in New York City, in 2007 famously ambushing Geraldo of Fox News live on television. Most problematic is the ever-present support for disinformation - such a lobby/basement bombs - with Rudkowski and others also attacking politicians for being "Bilderberg scum" and for their "support of the New World Order." In addition, Rudkowski is a David icke fan, active at sites as IlluminatiWatcher.com, and has become a leading Bilderberg stalker/journalist. I guess he made the perfect 9/11 Truth representative for the BBC.



In the BBC documentary the skeptics are almost exclusively allowed the final word, are almost without exception prestigious individuals, and are given more time to speak. These skeptics include: Richard Rotanz, Mark Loizeaux, Dr. Gene Corley, Peter Hayden, Daniel Nigro, Frank Papalia, Richard Porter, Jane Standley, Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Dr. Richard Sisson, Dr. Shyam Sunder, an anonymous female NIST scientist (with John Gross looking on), Ronald Wieck and Mark Roberts of Hardfire, and Richard Clarke. Most of these people are not unknown, fresh, outside experts. They were involved in the 9/11 debris removal and have defended the official story on other occasions.

There doesn't seem to have been any other purpose of the BBC documentary besides discouraging the belief that explosives may have been used to bring down Building 7. It's manipulative and superficially researched. It's pure psywar, actually, also in the sense that it allows for debate to continue forever. The aim is not to convince by fact, but by intimidation. This is especially clear at the end. Skeptic after skeptic is brought on stage to dismiss the conspiracy point of view from all kinds of different angles. After NIST's lead scientist Shyam Sunder, it's the turn of the Hardfire people, who are filmed stating:

Ronald Wieck: "It's purely faith. In other words, there is simply no evidence that you could show them