Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations

The collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 features prominently in research and debate concerning the possibility of 9/11 being an inside job. This 47-storey building, located approximately 350 feet north and east a little of World Trade Center Building 1, imploded smoothly and completely into a neat pile in 6 to 7 seconds, which is the same time an object in free fall would take to reach the ground if dropped from the top of the building. This implies that WTC7 collapsed with no or negligible resistance from the support members and assembly connections of the structure, something that has never before been observed in a steel-framed building outside of controlled demolition.

In 2002 the National Institute of Standards and Technology was tasked with studying and explaining the collapse of WTC7 after FEMA, previously charged with the task, openly stated they could not produce any realistic hypothesis. Now, four years later, the NIST report on WTC7 is more than a year overdue and still NIST has only produced low-content, preliminary reports. The institute's current working hypothesis proposes that damage to the building caused by falling debris from the collapse of WTC1, possibly combined with thermal load from the resulting fires, somehow caused a failure in the eastern portion of the building. This localized failure, the hypothesis proposes, then progressed horizontally and vertically through the entire structure resulting in a rapid and global implosion of the entire building. In this paper I will use photographic evidence, including a new image of the south face previously unknown to NIST, compared with eye witness reports to show that NIST's damage estimates are likely drastically erroneous, and the institute's current hypothesis invalid.

Images of WTC7 before 9/11, on 9/11, and after the collapse can be viewed here.

NIST's collapse hypothesis and damage estimates for WTC7 are published in the following reports:



June 2004 Progress Report - Appendix L Interim Report on WTC7



Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Part IIC – WTC 7 Collapse - Final"

Damage estimates from the reports are as follows:

Interim Report on WTC7 (page L-18)



After WTC 1 collapsed::



• Heavy debris (exterior panels from WTC 1) was seen on Vesey Street and the WTC 7 promenade structure at the third floor level.



• Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18.



• Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.



• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

-- middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground.

-- large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14.

-- debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact.

-- from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west.

Part IIC – WTC 7 Collapse - Final (page 15)



Debris Damage from WTC 1:



• Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 Promenade.



• No heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating.



• SW Corner Damage – floors 8 to 18.



• South face damage between two exterior columns - roof level down 5 to 10 floors, extent not known.



• South Face Damage:

-- middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground.

-- large debris hole near center around 14th floor.

-- 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact.

-- 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby.



NIST's collapse hypothesis hinges on the failure of one or more of columns 79, 80, and 81. The report cites the massive size and strength of the three columns as appearing to require "severe fires and/or damaged fireproofing to initiate thermally-related failures". Damage to the building from WTC1 debris is pointed to as the most likely contributing factor or direct cause of that failure, specifically damage to truss #2 (or adjacent components) which was located on the 6th floor. Simply put, a single truss or a single column is claimed to have been the Achilles heel of the structure, a heel that once broken, caused the entire entire 47 storey building to implode perfectly in on itself, with no resistance and at free fall rate.

The reports contain images in NIST's possession which show damage to the structure, specifically these two:

An image not in the reports (Fig. 4) shows mild facade damage to the upper floors, as described in NIST's appraisal. Since the building collapsed from the bottom, this damage can be considered unimportant for determining possible trigger events for the collapse.

Yet none of these images show the center of the south face where NIST has estimated an enormous potion carved out of the building. As detailed in the interim report, their assessment is based on photographs, video footage, and eye witness testimony, and since NIST has to date not produced any photographs or video to support their damage estimate, nor do any appear to be available in the public realm, we can assume that the WTC7 south face damage estimates are based on eye witness testimony. The interim report specifically states a lack of photographs or video showing the damage to the south face of WTC7, and that the institute utilized eye witness reports as the basis for their estimation:

L2.1 (page L-17)



After WTC 1 collapsed, the south face of WTC 7 was obscured by smoke, making direct observation of damage from photographs or videos difficult or impossible. The source of the smoke is uncertain, as large fires were burning in WTC 5 and WTC 6, as well as those noted below in WTC 7. The light but prevalent winds from the northwest caused the smoke to rise on the leeward, or south, side of the building. The following information about damage seen in WTC 7 was obtained from interviews of people in or near the building.

Known eye witness testimonies in the public domain specifically describing the damage to WTC7 in some detail are listed below. (Emphases mine.)

1. Battalion Chief John Norman:



"From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged."

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norman.html

2. Captain Chris Boyle:



Boyle:"...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good."



Firehouse: "When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?"



Boyle: "I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it."



Firehouse: "When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?"



Boyle: "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norman.html

3. Battalion Chief Kemly: (second hand report)



"..Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

4. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:



"...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

5. Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:



"I don't know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side."

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

6. Chief Frank Fellini:



The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110217.PDF

John Norman's testimony describes damage to the edge of the south face looking from the west, which would denote the south west corner. Chief Kemly's testimony is second hand, and describes damage to the south side without specifying a location. Nick Visconti's describes damage to the lower floors but does not specify an exact location, be it the lower portion of the building or the very lowest few floors, and be it the east side, the middle, or the west. And Peter Hayden describes a bulge across three floors, again on the south west corner. Fellini's testimony does describe damage to the floors critical to NIST's hypothesis, yet does not define a location on the face.

The only account above that seems to specifically support NIST's startlingly wide and deep middle of the south face damage estimate is Chris Boyle's description of a 20-storey hole in the middle of the face, covering about a third of it. However, recently a photograph of the south face of WTC7 was discovered. The photograph, previously unknown to NIST, was taken on the day of 9/11 by photographer Steve Spak and seems to prove Boyle's testimony to be inaccurate. Below is the image in Fig. 5:

At a casual glance, Spak's image would seem to confirm Boyle's testimony of a huge hole in the middle of the the south face, however a closer analysis reveals that the damage we see is actually located on the extreme west side of the south face and joins with the south west corner. The hole in the south face described by some eye witnesses (used by NIST as the basis for damage estimation) and the south west corner damage are one and the same, thereby placing the hole far from columns 79 - 80 and thus invalidating NIST's collapse hypothesis.

Below is a reconstructed map of the south face, showing column numbers along the top of the 20th floor and floor numbers along the south west edge. A description of my mapping process is included at the end of the paper.

At it's widest point, the damage can be seen to extend from column 5 to column 1 (the south west edge of the structure), and is in the same location as the south west corner damage shown in Fig. 2. Captain Chris Boyle's description of a 20-storey hole in the middle of the south face is refuted by this photo, which shows a quite intact facade in that region. The fact that Boyle's testimony described a 20 storey hole, and the damage to the south west corner reached approximately to the 20th floor, would suggest that Boyle either visually interpreted the location of the hole incorrectly at the time, or his later recollection from memory was incorrect, and what he saw was in fact the hole we see in this photo.

NIST's estimation of the south west corner damage extends less than one column across the south face (Fig. 1), and was obviously estimated from the photograph in Fig. 2 which only shows the west face portion. This estimation is directly contradicted by Spak's photograph. Furthermore, NIST's estimation of the hole in the south face extends across 5 to 6 columns, which is the same as the hole we see in Spak's photo, indicating that they have based their estimates on erroneous interpretations of eye witness testimony, and placed the major damage to the south face in the wrong location.

The location of WTC1 relative to WTC7 further suggests that the heaviest debris falling from the north face of WTC1 would strike the south west corner and west side of the south face of WTC7, rather than falling at an angle to strike the center of the south face. FEMA, who was on-site during the disaster, in their 2002 "World Trade Center Building Performance Study" illustrated the debris distribution from the collapse of the twin towers. (Fig. 8)

Comparing WFC3 (Fig. 9) and the Bankers Trust building (Fig. 10), both positioned offset from the sides of the towers, and in the case of the Bankers Trust even closer than WTC7, we can see that they were struck by some perimeter columns, however the damage - while initially visually impacting - was negligible in terms of a threat to the stability of the structures.

The Banker's Trust building was half the distance from the collapsing south tower as WTC7 was from the north tower, yet sustained much less damage than NIST claims was sustained by the much more distant WTC7 - certainly nothing comparable to 1/3 of the WTC7 south face and 25% of the building gouged out, which would equate to 2/3 or more of the face of the Banker's Trust building. The photograph in Fig. 10a also shows a path of perimeter columns laid out leading to the face of the Bankers Trust, suggesting that a large, interconnected portion of the south face of WTC2 fell into it. Figures 13c and 13d below show that no such path of heavy interconnected perimeter debris leads to the critical portion of WTC7's south face, and indeed, a fragile pedestrian bridge in that region was still quite intact after the collapse of the north tower.

NIST's damage estimate describes the alleged damage to the middle of the south face of WTC7 as "middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground." However, to-date no eye witness testimony appears available in the public realm to support this, suggesting that NIST has either withheld images showing the damage from publication (which seems unreasonable to assume they would so), that they have access to eye witness testimony we do not, or that they made a conservative appraisal of Boyle's testimony. And again, this claim is clearly refuted by Spak's photograph which shows the 9th and 10th floors to be undamaged in the center of the south face.

The 10th floor to ground damage claim is moreover directly contradicted by the testimony of fire fighters who evacuated the remaining occupants of WTC7 after the collapse of WTC1. The fire fighters testified that there was no heavy debris in the lobby, only white dust from the collapse and some hanging wires. The testimony seems to have disappeared from publication, however NIST's reports both repeat the testimony:

Interim Report on WTC7 (page L-18)



At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m. firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building.



• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8



• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving



• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed.

The 2002 FEMA report also includes a description of fire fighter testimony, clearly stating the 9th floor of the building was intact along the south face:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf



According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner.

Furthermore, WTC7 floor plans in the interim report show that the lobby atrium extended up through the 4th floor to the floor of the 5th, with a narrow floor span across three columns in the center (Fig. 11a). Hence, any heavy debris impacting the south face and gouging out the 10th to ground floors - particularly if it extended across 6 columns of the face as NIST estimates - would fall into the lobby through the atrium and/or crash directly into it the lobby, yet the above firefighter testimony clearly states there was no such debris.

Interim Report on WTC7 (Page L-7)



Floors 2 and 3 were also partial floors adjacent to the substation. In addition, they had a floor opening on the south side to form the atrium above the ground level lobby. Floor 4 was above the substation and had a large opening over most of the south side of the building, to form a double-height space above the 3rd floor lobby.

Another section of the damage estimate claims: "debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (which extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact." Several floors above the atrium implies at least the 8th floor, yet Spak's photograph showing an undamaged 9th floor in the center of the south face, and the firefighter eye witness report from the 9th floor both seem to refute this claim, unless the damage was solely confined to the 8th floor. Regardless, truss#2, integral to NIST's hypothesis, was located on the 6th floor, not several floors above the atrium. It should also be noted that the description of the atrium glass being intact directly contradicts the claim of a third of the face gouged out from the 10th floor to the ground. It also directly contradicts any assertion that the 3rd to 6th floor damage described by Fellini was in the region of the atrium, which included the area of the facade in the location of columns 79 - 81 and truss #2 just above (see Fig. 11a above).

The report describing two elevator cars ejected into the hallway on the 8th or 9th floor is contradicted by the report of no damage to the 9th floor apart from the southwest corner, unless the damage was confined to the 8th floor alone. Again, any such damage does not entail damage to the 6th floor truss, and would also be well west of columns 79 - 81 (Fig. 12).

A pedestrian overpass joined the building between the 11th and 13th columns along the south facade, directly under the region in front of truss #2 and columns 79 - 81. Photographs in the NIST report show the relatively fragile pedestrian bridge intact and only subject to light debris damage. This would seem to rule out with a high probabilty any heavy debris striking the south face in that specific region and with enough weight and force to penetrate deep enough into the building to affect those structural elements.

One part of NIST's estimation may be confirmed by Spak's photo. In the region of the south face bounded by columns 6 to 8 and floors 12 to 14 is a black area. Due to the clarity of the image and the obscuring smoke, it is difficult to tell whether this is a hole in the facade or merely soot damage. If it is indeed damage to the facade, it corresponds with NIST's estimation of a "large debris hole near center around 14th floor." However, this damage is again at least 6 storeys above the trusses and transfer system on floor 6 which is critical to NIST's collapse hypothesis.

Recently more eye witness testimony in regards to the damage to WTC7 has appeared. NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated the following in a recent video interview:

Former NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer:



As I approached, I came down and saw the big hubbub going on around Building 7. I walked around it, I saw a hole, I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down though. There was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any creaking or any indication that it was going to come down.



It had some damage to it but nothing like what they're saying...nothing to account for what we saw. I am shocked at the story we've heard about it, to be quite honest.

Note that Bartmer mentions he walked around the building, and he mentions a hole, not two holes. Bartmer's interview can be viewed here.

Summary

In light of Spak's photograph, assessment of eye witness reports, and the implications thereof, NIST's damage estimate should perhaps be more like the below diagrams when based upon that which is able to be confirmed:

Without a clear photograph showing the lowest portion of the south face, we can never be 100% sure that there is no damage to the area of the 6th floor where truss#2 was located, nor whether any such imagined damage was deep enough and far east enough to affect the assembly in question. However there is simply no basis for such an assumption based on the evidence available to NIST and to us. The fact remains that NIST does not possess a photograph of that area either, and hence their estimations are based solely on evidence that we the public have, i.e eye witness testimony. Furthermore the witness testimony that is not directly refuted by Spak's photograph is wildly conflicting - reports of enormous 10 floor craters are at odds with other reports of even the fragile glass being intact in the very same region. Of all the testimony that we have seen, including that not in the public realm but described by NIST in their reports, only two accounts could ever conceivably support NIST's enormous crater in the middle of the south face - the accounts of Boyle and Visconti. Boyle's testimony has been irrefutably disproven by the Spak photo, and yet NIST's estimation of the width and placement of the damage seems to be quite in line with that testimony. Visconti's "a big chunk of the lower floors" is vague, unspecific, and inconclusive, and certainly not any reasonable basis for NIST's damage estimate. NIST, it seems, has pulled the placement and size estimation of that enormous crater out of thin air. In fact, I would suggest that due to poor visibility and the varied locations of the witnesses, the majority of the witnesses saw and were describing the southwest damage seen in Spak's photograph.

The photographic evidence and analyses herein suggest that the major damage to the building caused by WTC1 debris was away from the trusses and columns which are critical to NIST's collapse hypothesis, or that damage to that region was not deep enough to affect those assemblies, and would therefore seem to invalidate that hypothesis unless alternative reasons for failure are considered, such as thermal load alone. Small wonder then that the head of the WTC project for NIST, Dr Shyam Sunder, stated in a March 2006 New York Magazine interview, "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7". Unless NIST can provide some photographic evidence that we haven't yet seen, it would appear that the institute's interpretations of the damage to the south face of WTC7 are at best grossly inaccurate, and at worst, deliberately biased in favor of their hypothesis for the collapse of the building.

Spak Image Mapping Process :

In anticipation of questions as to the mapping accuracy for the Spak photograph, I have included a summary of the process here.

The roof of the U.S. Post Office was level with approximately the 18th - 22nd floor of WTC7, allowing room for differences in perspective considering the south facade of WTC7 was slightly north of the south facade of the Post Office building:

This places the soot damage in the top left of Spak's photograph at about the same height

The location of the soot mark is confirmed as being either at the 19th or 22nd floor by NIST's description of the south west corner damage being from floors 8 to 18, and the observation of two soot marks, one on each of those floors.

The soot mark at the 22nd floor is ruled out by the observation of squarer, taller windows on the 22nd and 23rd floor than are present in the Spak photo:

The location is further confirmed by these photographs, showing the double floor soot damage on the 29th and 30th floors:

Height of the floors is ascertained from the visible floors on the west face of WTC7 above the Verizon building in the Spak photograph:

NIST's floor plan of WTC7 shows 14 columns along the south face, including the corners:

The windows on the south face of the Verizon Building and the south face of WTC7 establish the right hand horizon vanishing point. The facade of the Verizon is on a slightly different plane to the facade of WTC7, which was set back somewhat from Vesey Street, however completing the lines across the floors of WTC7 in the final mapping shows the difference to be negligible. Limted visibility of continuous window frame lines on the face of WTC7 and the fact that some of the skin of the building was loosened prevent accurate vanishing points being established from the face of WTC7 alone. I estimate an uncertainty of +/-2%. Blue lines lines were placed over the visible columns exposed by the shattered windows, including the SW and SE corners. Yellow lines were placed where the remaining columns should be, spacing estimated by established columns, taking vertical and horizontal perspective into account.

Sincere thanks to the following people for their astute observations and assistance:

Craig T. Furlong of the Scholars for 911 Truth

"SN" of Abovetopsecret.com

"Nine Eleven Researcher" of StudyOf911.com