NIST is the governmental body which brought out the report on 911 and in particular, the structural side to WTC7.
WTC7 is the term used throughout the article and its discussion for the building discussed. Wiki says:
7 World Trade Center is a building in New York City located across from the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan. It is the second building to bear that name and address in that location. The original structure was completed in 1987 and was destroyed in a terrorist attack. The current 7 World Trade Center opened in 2006 on part of the site of the old 7 World Trade Center. Both buildings were developed by Larry Silverstein, who holds a ground lease for the site from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
This article refers to the old building, not the post-2002 building in its place, as WTC7.
There are three main parties quoted in this article:
# those who don’t believe the entirety of the NIST report on 911 – let’s call them sceptics, who have called for a reopening of the investigation of the events of that day
# the debunkers who don’t accept what the sceptics say and who largely support NIST but with their own embellishments on occasions.
The article below will concentrate entirely on WTC7 and will avoid all unnecessary reference to other aspects, such as the twin towers, aeroplanes or the Pentagon, unless in the context of “debris from the north tower” or similar.
The article will avoid drawing any conclusions about conspiracies, yea or nay but will leave that to the reader.
It will make reference to certain debunkers, not for the purpose of vilifying them but only to point out that the tone they’ve adopted and the paucity of what has been presented is an argument itself within the context of what the article is trying to establish.
It will attempt to maintain a neutral tone, avoiding colourful adjectives and references to the bona fides of either NIST or the debunkers, except in one section, necessary for the argument.
So let’s make a start
The events of 911, one would have thought, might have been put to bed but as with JFK and Dr. David Kelly, they haven’t and the reason is anomalies which have not been adequately explained away, along with an attitude on the part of the authorities which parallels that of the JFK investigation and the subsequent Warren Report.
You’ll recall there was a second investigation and report of the House years later and it’s to be hoped there’ll be an independent investigation of the events of 911 as well. This article argues that there is sufficient evidence to at least warrant such an investigation.
Contrast these two comments on 911. First, from a sceptic:
I would have thought that NIST would have taken up the report from US Geological Survey who,besides finding spherical iron particles, they reported something had melted molybdenum,which has a very high melting point. Even though US Geological is a Federal agency, NIST chose not to include it in their final report.
… and this from a debunker:
For all the conspiracy types, I’d like to know how they rigged the building for demolition, when they knew an airliner full of jet fuel was going to impact it somewhere. How do you do the wiring to take that into account and still bring the building down. Conspiracy nuts don’t understand basic engineering principles, which doesn’t stop them from flapping their gums.
Contrast the debunkers’ comments in this post on WTC7, which refer to such things as “you deranged Nazi muppet” and similar to the sceptic comments such as:
I offer this aerial photo of the aftermath -:
You will note buildings 4, 5 and 6 suffered major damage being in the footprint of the towers and did not collapse. You will note the P.O. and Verizon buildings were exposed to the same risk of damage, rubble, vortexes and fire and yet suffer barely a scratch.
The debunking side was significant for its mockery:
You forgot the Frankfurt School
… with no accompanying counter-arguments and for one blogger celebrity who waltzed in and followed this methodology:
1. Set up a strawman that is easily mocked;
2. Follow the strawman you’ve set up with ad hominem abuse;
3. Throw in a link which is one debunking link which has been debunked itself [LOL] and not in small measure.
As one reader of my last post on the matter emailed me:
The website that DK linked to appears to rely heavily on the NIST report and other official reports. This link below makes a few observations about them.
The book that’s referred to by David Ray Griffin has several useful reviews that may be worth reading.
In a debate put on by a debating society, to attempt to present that as your case would see you laughed out of the room and your reputation as a debater dashed for all time.
What is most puzzling about that celebrity blogger is that he once had a reputation as a clearthinking and fearless fisker of all things nefarious and I’d agree he was pretty darned good, hence his celebrity status, potty-mouth notwithstanding.
A measure of the man was that he could be personally kind to me and to many other lesser mortals in the sphere and that impressed me at the time. At the inception of this blog, he emailed us and wished us the best of luck, so you’ll see why my feelings are quite mixed.
One of his apologists emailed me with “he’s taken a back seat of late” and a number of people also emailed and asked me not to dwell too much on his 911 argument, such as it was.
So I won’t. Let’s move on.
Why such vehemence?
Just as with JFK, where observers fell quickly into two camps and then presented only facts from their own side which, by avoiding any but the most sceptical reading and only for the purpose of fisking, could hardly be relied on as final proof – so in this case, it is very difficult indeed to get to the unadulterated facts.
Even good material is shrouded in so much guff, on both sides that the bulk of my time in preparing this article was spent excising the colourful adjectives, the giving over of sections primarily directed against the other side and the windbagging of youtube presenters, along with dramatic music somehow meant to convince, in lieu of data.
And vehement it has become, as can be witnessed in the comments thread of that post on WTC7. Why? Well, I can only think that certain people have much riding on this being seen in one way – they have much to lose if it is seen by the public in a different way.
Why the puzzling behaviour, sometimes out of character?
I’m referring here to bloggers who are natural sceptics, i.e. the majority on my blogrolls and many who visit and even post at this site, who are perfectly happy to accept that there is an attempt by the government to suppress the liberty of the individual.
These people can be called radical, in the sense that radical means getting back to the roots, to the origins, to the essential basis or even truth of a matter. For such people, quite experienced in viewing government reports with jaundiced eyes, they’ll believe those reports only once they’ve done a thorough investigation of their own and have looked at the other side, in detail.
This is the mindset which produces the fisker who goes through such reports clause by clause, section by section, annotated along the way. This is the mindset which does not automatically accept the NPCC report but starts posting on the “alternative science” and who wouldn’t trust anything said by NPCC “scientists” until it has been vetted and conceded by scientists on the sceptical side.
These bloggers are natural-born sceptics and fiskers of hokum.
And yet here they are, on this one issue, suddenly and unquestioningly taking the side of the very government who produced those other reports they’ve been so scathing about and not only accepting NIST holus-bolus but actively seeking to dissuade scepticism and mocking it. playing it down whenever it arises, which is often.
Take the debunker link provided and straight off is this:
Yet, in just under four years, the 9/11 “truth movement” has ground to a halt. Apart from the fundamental incoherence of their theories, the downfall of the 9/11 denier juggernaut was good old-fashioned skepticism at its finest, the kind that conjures visions of James Randi challenging psychics and faith healers on their home turfs and winning. Skeptics are better at their jobs than they think, and its important to give credit where credit is due.
Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content may have been the 9/11 deniers’ biggest mistake.
To your humble article-poster, this is really quite puzzling and not only that, it is based on so many false premises. For example – “ground to a halt”? Emotive language, attempting to establish a fait accompli with no evidence presented to back it up but betraying the intent of the whole series of pages which have been produced expensively and with no attempt to be concise.
Internet-based content”? Now if that doesn’t get the sceptical bloggers’ alarm bells and red flags going, what else can? That’s the way MSMers and politicians talk, assassinating the internet as a presenter of anything worthwhile, accusing people such as the celebrity blogger mentioned above of being lightweight, even inviting him on Andrew Neil’s show for the express purpose of destroying him.
And knowing that he had a number done on him, he turns around and supports the very people who did that.
The debunker’s site claims it:
addresses the misleading and deceitful conspiracy industries latest attempt at creating consumers for their products.
Do I need to even address that? And yet that is presented as evidence of debunking.
I must admit I always thought that the state either locked up lunatics or gave them medication. It is with some trepidation that these conspiracy loonies, along with the Princess Diana conspirator theorists – “It was the Duke of Edinburgh & MI5 that done it.” – are still amongst us.
More evidence? That passes for scholarship? My colleagues are happy to support such people as that? Here’s another piece of evidence from the debunker:
Conspiracy Theorists are hard at work looking to find the slightest discrepancy in the NIST preliminary report.
The NIST report is covered below. One commenter wrote:
The collapse of Building 7 at 5:20PM EDT was in itself a major event; the sudden and unexplained fall to earth of a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper is certainly news. Why has there been almost no mention of this in the U.S. media, and why was there no mention of Building 7’s collapse in The 9/11 Commission Report?
Is that not reason alone to investigate the report[s] which ignored the critical evidence? The debunker thinks not and continues:
I’m arguing that the damage to building 7 is MUCH worse than conspiracy theorist would have you believe.
Well yes, sceptics agree:
On September 16th, NASA flew an airplane over the World Trade Center site, recorded infrared radiation coming from the ground, and created a thermal map. The U.S. Geological Survey analyzed this data, and determined the actual temperature of the rubble. This map shows that five days after the collapse of Building 7, the surface temperature of a section of its rubble was 1,341º F.
Assuming we’re unbiased, what would that indicate to you about the temperature during the collapse? In the light of possibly unusual events, should this not at least be addressed, rather than those raising the question being vilified?
Ironically, the vast majority of those who created and promoted that propaganda probably did so innocently, never questioning the official version of events.
Academics helped to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers in articles in respected publications. Just two days after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using “elastic dynamic analysis.” “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? – Simple Analysis” was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent.
These are the bloggers who once fought for the right to question and who rightly castigated people who tried to gag the debate or to marginalize and vilify them by innuendo. Yet here they are doing precisely that themselves to a little blogger who dares to raise the question that there might be anomalies in this WTC7 thing.
Coming back to WTC7, You can read all the accounts initially allowed to be published here. Remember, that is a debunker’s site, replete with text in bold, so that you get the debunking picture. What you actually get is a picture of two things:
1. The fire started small and no attempt was made to stop it, on the grounds that there was no available water. When they finally got to deciding whether to intervene, they decided against it. So a fire was observed on a few floors but the fire department were not allowed to treat it. Interesting behaviour, would you not say?
2. All day and especially all afternoon, everyone in the area was being told to steer clear, that the building was coming down, even at the points it wasn’t coming down, being a steel structure similar to others which were firegutted and yet still stood. Firemen might be excused for not knowing how steel buildings operate but fire chiefs should have known that – it’s part of their business to know those things.
Still, there is an innocent explanation and that is that the scene was in shock and it is better to be safe than sorry. On the other hand, it makes observation of what was actually going on inside known only to a handful of people, such data never to be released. Let’s leave that point at that – unresolved.
The debunker quotes:
“The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street.
It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people.
We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely” – Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
“A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and 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.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea.
Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it.
That cuts both ways – it shows that when they went in, obviously it wasn’t a danger to life and limb at that stage, otherwise they wouldn’t have gone in – that’s just common sense – but it seems to have got more as it went on, on the south side.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses.
So that much is pretty clear.
The debunking site’s take on WTC7 [specifically]
The debunker says the map is “showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong”. The simple fact is that, tall as WTC1 was and though it leaned over, WTC6 was in the way and the initial fire and buckling in WTC7 was between floors 10 and 13.
So what does that prove? It does not bear on the argument that it was a CD on WTC7 at 5:20 p.m.
He goes on:
Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns. This is yet another example of pancaking.
In fact, though he uses no science to support that, it happens to be part of the CT argument as well, which you’ll hear below in one of the vids. Of course it pancakes – it is designed to come down into its own footprint.
Much of what NIST did has been covered in detail over the years. Here is one commentary on that:
The most important part of NIST’s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse. In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NIST’s investigation: [i]
“NIST’s so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model. The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened…
The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results you’re looking for is called selection bias. If you think about it, NIST’s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias. Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesn’t show what actually did happen.”
Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse:[ii]
This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST’s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.
Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:
“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”
Although NIST’s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse, it cannot be falsified because NIST did not release its modeling data. Mr. Chandler explains:
“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted.
If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”
[ii] NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, “Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.111. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm
Foreign Policy Journal adds:
A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds. A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact.
However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories. The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model.
Another requisite for a scientific theory is that the empirical data the theory is based on must be reproducible by others. Other scientists must be able to perform the exact same experiments and obtain the exact same results.
Unfortunately, NIST’s only empirical data to explain the eight story buckling, the data their computer model is based on, is unavailable to independent researchers. It is unavailable because NIST refuses to release it. NIST has stated that releasing the data “might jeopardize public safety”.
So because the NIST model cannot be verified, it is meant to be taken on faith. The NIST model, then, is faith-based, not science-based.
The best alternative to NIST’s WTC 7 theory is the controlled demolition theory. This theory states that additional sources of energy other than fire and gravity were used to bring down WTC 7. The strongest theories contend that these alternate energy sources included explosives and incendiaries. It is common knowledge that shaped charges can cut through steel support columns. If all remaining support columns of WTC 7 were rigged with shaped charges on both sides, on each story for eight stories and were set off in the correct precisely timed manner, they could remove all remaining resisting support for WTC 7 allowing it to free-fall for 2.25 seconds.
More on this later, under The Collapse Itself. NIST itself appeared to soften its stance, as of 7/5/07:
A new eyewitness inside WTC-7 on the morning of 9/11 heard explosions before either of the Twin Towers collapsed. He was summoned to the Office of Emergency Management Operating Center (OEMOC), also known as “Rudy’s Bunker,” on the 23rd floor of the building. The center had been especially prepared for the Mayor and other officials to gather in case of a terrorist attack or other emergency. Some have wondered why Giuliani did not go to the OEMOC but instead remained some distance from the World Trade Center. This witness, who testified at official hearings and whose identity will be revealed in the general-theater-release version of “Loose Change,” has information that sheds light on this and other questions about WTC-7.
In its latest press release (29 June 2007), NIST acknowledges that NIST is “considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse . . . (and) led to (WTC-7′s) structural failure” (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html). Blast events would be consistent with a controlled demolition.
This is not reported by debunkers. It continues:
Even James Glanz, a reporter for The New York Times, admitted in an early story (29 November 2001) that the collapse of WTC-7 is even more perplexing than is the destruction of the Twin Towers, because no reinforced, steel structure high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire in the history of structural engineering. “Indeed, no steel structure high-rise collapsed due to fire before 9/11 nor after 9/11 – nor, if our research is correct, on 9/11.”
This article largely avoids the use of material from Alex Jones, not because it is wrong but because its very source being Jones is sufficient for debunkers to claim it is invalid, which is a ridiculous stance to take. One item which really does need quoting from Jones is:
After filing a lawsuit that prompted NIST to release more than 3 terabytes of photographs and videos from their investigation into the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 on 9/11, the International Center for 9/11 Studies has obtained evidence that suggests NIST edited several videos of the collapse of Building 7 in order to hide evidence of a controlled implosion.
The Center filed a FOIA Request with NIST on January 26, 2009, seeking production of “all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses.”
Following several unsuccessful attempts to get NIST to even acknowledge receipt of the Request, the Center was forced to file a lawsuit on May 28, 2009. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the Request was assigned a reference number, and NIST began periodically releasing batches of responsive records.
The Center has now begun posting some of those images and videos online, the first batch of which is from an external hard disk drive “NIST WTC Investigation Cumulus Video Clips.”
However, in subsequent clips released by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), where the camera is located nearer to the building, the collapse of the penthouse is clearly edited out of the footage.
“Several clips from the Cumulus database show signs of editing. In the two video clips below, the collapse of the penthouse of World Trade Center 7 is cut out of the video. These videos happen to have been filmed from close to WTC 7, and have a high quality soundtrack that would have picked up explosion sounds from the charges that severed the columns supporting the penthouse, especially the explosion heard in the last video clip presented,” comments the International Center for 9/11 Studies.
As that is contentious and not vital to establish CD, this article now will move on from that without further comment.
John Gross, one of the lead engineers of the NIST report is questioned about the existence of molten steel at the WTC building, the collapse of Building 7, and also explains how the NIST report did not do any analysis of the collapse of all three buildings. This video was shot on October 18, 2006. John Gross was asked to come speak at the University of Texas at Austin by the Phil. M. Ferguson Fund. A UT 9/11 Truth student organization called A Project for the New American Citizen was there to ask questions and film his response. This footage may appear in Loose Change Final Cut.
There’s no calculation we did to demonstrate that …” Pardon?
So, in a situation where the matter is anything but resolved, out comes the government and, EU-like, attempts to show that new evidence has come to light which puts the whole question to bed, end of story, nothing more here, pick up your bat and go home please:
August 22, 2008 – GAITHERSBURG, Md. – Federal investigators said yesterday that they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.
The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan. On Sept. 11, as the North Tower collapsed, falling debris damaged Building 7 and ignited several fires inside. Skeptics have long argued that fire and debris alone could not have brought down such a large steel-and-concrete structure.
Tampering with evidence
The debunker quotes many sites, among which is this:
The Firefighter Quotes – Evidence that conspiracy theorists are lying and taking firefighter quotes out of context.
Let’s see what the firefighters really were claiming. They called into question the official report, which denies explosions [you heard one in the second post] and molten metal, let alone a controlled demolition:
Now if we look at NFPA 921 14.3 “Preservation of the Fire Scene and Physical Evidence” we find the following “the cause of a fire or explosion is not known until near the end of the investigation. Therefore, the evidentiary or interpretative value of various pieces of physical evidence observed at the scene may not be known until, at, or near the end of the fire scene examination, or until the end of the complete investigation. As a result, the entire fire scene should be considered physical evidence and should be protected and preserved.”
It doesn’t get much clearer than this. This is Investigation-101! For, all those debunkers and detractors who say “it’s obvious” why the buildings came down, I beg to differ, and so does the NFPA – ”the cause of a fire or explosion is not known until near the end of the investigation.”
We are professionals, we are not supposed to jump to conclusions, and we are not supposed to let political and public factors determine what we do and don’t investigate. We definitely are not supposed to destroy the very evidence that will provide the answers.
And, when every indicator in “the book” is screaming “high-order” explosive damage, we have a history of prior explosives use by terrorists in those exact buildings, we have over 100 first responders reporting hearing “secondary” explosions, the fact that evidence was destroyed and this wasn’t investigated thoroughly is nothing short of criminal!
Let’s pause for a moment and ask the debunkers what they make of that? Firefighters out of order? Don’t know their business?
The Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002 , said:
Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract.”
Steel and debris from the site was sent to Fresh Kills where it was examined and sifted. As the Department of Sanitation could no longer handle the steel with their equipment, and … engineers thought the steel would destabilize the landfill, DDC received verbal permission to ship the steel to New Jersey. By the end of June 2002, over 1.6 million tons of steel and other debris were removed from the site.
“[O]n September 28, the New York Times learned that the city was recycling the steel. When the Times contacted Kenneth R. Holden, commissioner of the Department of Design and Construction, he said that no one from the investigative team had asked him to keep or inspect the steel.
The ASCE, it turned out, had faxed a request, but to the wrong fax machine. Late that afternoon, after reporters shuttled the correct fax number to the ASCE, Holden said that a request had finally reached him.”
Mayor Giuliani had been asked to halt the removal but his office did not respond to these requests. Commissioner Kenneth R. Holden … was given an award in 2002 by the AIA New York Chapter after he had overseen the criminal destruction of the steel from the World Trade Center.
Fire Engineering magazine, January, 2002 edition, questioned the legality of sawing off sections of steel from the site and shipping it to China, before any investigation was carried out on it. In May of 2002, FEMA published their report #403 titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study.
This report claimed that the fires caused the building to collapse, but that the specifics of how this is supposed to have occurred “remain unknown at this time.” Yet independent sources were able to look at small amounts of material and came to certain conclusions [see Chemical Aspects below].
Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11. In the documentary “America Rebuilds“, aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement:
“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: “… we’re getting ready to pull the building six.”
Not pull all firefighters out, not pull the building over to one side but “pull the building”. To finish the job off [if you're a debunker] or to implode it [if you're a sceptic]. Let’s not decide yet.
The following video is intended only to show the interview in which Silverstein spoke and you can make your own mind up whether “pull” means to bring the building down, on the grounds that it was now so dangerous that it threatened other buildings in the area, let alone life and limb of those around, especially crews.
There are other things in the video which I do not rely on in this article – debunkers will still point to my inclusion of this video as tinfoil hattism nonetheless – but I repeat, I do not rely on the vid for anything other than the footage of Silverstein himself.
This site addresses the Silverstein statement, one the debunkers absolutely must debunk or else their case in in trouble:
Subsequently, Silverstein Properties issued a statement claiming that when Silverstein advised the fire commander that “the smartest thing to do is pull it,” what he meant was that it would be wise to pull a contingent of firefighters out of the building. [ii]
Silverstein Properties’ explanation is unavailing for at least two reasons. A natural reading of this phrase indicates that when he said pull “it,” Silverstein was talking about pulling Building 7 itself, not the firefighters who were supposedly still inside the building. Second, there were no firefighters inside building when Silverstein advised the fire department commander to “pull it.”
The absence of firefighters in Building 7 is verified by the fact that Silverstein has admitted that he made his “pull it” statements “at around 3:30 or 4:00PM,” [iii] while the official National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) report indicates that Building 7 had already been fully evacuated between 12:30PM and 2:00PM. [iv]
Thus, “at around 3:30 or 4:00PM,” when Silverstein and the fire department commander were supposedly discussing evacuation of the firefighters, everyone, including firefighters, had already been evacuated from Building 7.
The collapse itself
The debunker links to this:
The Free Fall Fallacy – Photographic evidence the towers did not fall at free fall speed.
In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.[i]
Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii]
The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.
A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.” [iii]
Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.” [iv]
Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].” [v]
However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying: [vi]
“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”
Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:
“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”
“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”
Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:
“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.
[i] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 – Draft for Public Comment,” Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf
[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16
[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,” GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201
[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/
Barry Jennings was Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority. He was inside Tower 7 when the second plane had struck tower 2. He very clearly states he heard multiple explosions well before the collapse of Tower 7, and he barely made it out due to these explosions.
And of course, Barry Jennings is now also dead, though I’ll not make anything of that in this article.
Here are three videos showing it from different angles.
The debunker mentions the cables:
We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they’re pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables.”
Eight story building?
Eyewitness on a “countdown”:
Instead of reading web pages by ‘truthers’ and ‘debunkers’ why not ask an expert? Why not ask a demolition contractor how he would go about pulling down a multi-storey office block in a confined space without damaging neighbouring buildings?
Your word, JD, is my command. Here is a demolition expert on the subject [H/T Revolution Harry]:
The Dutch demolition expert in that film, Danny Jowenko, was killed in a car accident in the Netherlands, on 16/07/2011, shortly before 19.16 hours.
He was reportedly driving from church when he collided head-on with a tree. There was also a dog in the car who survived. No attempt is made, in this article today, to draw any conclusions from that.
In 2007 reports began to circulate that Jowenko had retracted his stance on the footage of WTC7, however, he reaffirmed his previous opinion in a phone call with blogger Jeff Hill, noting “When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, ‘No, it was a controlled demolition’, you’re gone. You know?”
Even the debunker comes to the party here and offers numbered points refuting the CD hypothesis. His point 7 is:
7) The collapse happened from the bottom.
That is significant in the light of comments on this vid by another demolition expert:
“In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts” says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also … Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that “WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives”.
Foreign Policy Journal acknowledges difficulties with CD:
There definitely are problems with the controlled demolition explosives theories. For instance, although there is some evidence of explosive sounds, in the available audio/visual evidence of the WTC 7 collapse, you don’t see the flashes and the loud booms typically seen with explosive controlled demolitions. But the sounds and flashes could be muted by Romex blasting mats, for example.
Non-typical technologies could also have been used. Recent experiments by the engineer Jonathan Cole have shown that relatively small amounts of thermate, thermite mixed with sulfur, can cut through vertical support beams like a shaped charge and yet produce much less noise. These experiments also show that thermate can also easily weaken beams and cut bolts.
Note that in typical controlled demolitions the building’s structure is weakened as much as possible to minimize the amount of high explosive needed. Explosive nano-thermite has also been found in the WTC dust.
So the inescapable and disturbing conclusion is that the most scientific theory available for the WTC 7 collapse is that it was a controlled demolition, brought down with explosives. This conclusion shows without a doubt that a thorough independent scientific investigation into the 9/11 event must be undertaken. Until now, this has not been done.
Attempts to deny “expert testimony”
Lawbrain gives this admittedly negative view on it:
Generally speaking, the law of evidence in both civil and criminal cases confines the testimony of witnesses to statements of concrete facts within their own observation, knowledge, and recollection.
Testimony must normally state facts perceived by the witnesses’ use of their own senses, as distinguished from their opinions, inferences, impressions, and conclusions drawn from the facts.
Opinion testimony that is based on facts is usually considered incompetent and inadmissible, if the factfinders are as well qualified as the witness to draw conclusions from the facts.
Now that is fair. However, they go on to say:
In certain instances, however, the law allows witnesses to provide opinion evidence, and such evidence is divided into two classes, lay opinion and expert opinion. A lay witness may give his or her opinion when that opinion is (1) rationally based on the perception of the witness; (2) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue; and (3) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of expert testimony discussed below.
Thus, lay witnesses who have had an opportunity to observe a particular vehicle in motion are normally permitted to testify that it was traveling at a great rate of speed or was going pretty fast. Lay witnesses are also normally allowed to give their opinion as to the height, weight, quantity, and dimensions of things, even if their testimony is not precise. By definition, a lay witness is any witness who is not qualified to testify as an expert on a particular subject.
Expert witnesses are persons who are qualified, either by actual experience or by careful study, to form definite opinions with respect to a division of science, a branch of art, or a department of trade. The law deems persons having no such experience or training to be incapable of forming accurate opinions or drawing correct conclusions.
Thus, if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 149-152, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court further observed that the reliability of a scientific technique may turn on whether the technique can be and has been tested; whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; and whether there is a high rate of error or standards controlling its operation.
Courts do not apply a rigid rule in determining whether a particular witness is qualified to testify as an expert. Instead, an expert’s qualifications are normally evaluated on a witness-by-witness basis, according to the facts and issues of each case.
There are two general classes of matters as to which expert testimony is admissible: (1) matters as to which the conclusions to be drawn by the jury depend on the existence of facts that are not common knowledge and that are specifically within the knowledge of persons whose experience or study enables them to testify with authority on the subjects in question; and (2) matters as to which the conclusions to be drawn from the facts stated, as well as knowledge of the facts themselves, depend on professional or scientific knowledge not within the range of ordinary training or intelligence.
Now, the lay denial of the qualification of the men just quoted [as in comments on the last post] depended on three factors:
1. “Well, the other side has their experts too,” assuming of course, in a mathematical model, that all experts are equal but the denier’s is a bit more expert than the sceptic’s;
2. That the denier has the expertise him/herself to pronounce on the said experts’ qualifications to speak on the matter;
3. That the actual comments made by the experts are not refuted, one by one but that a general conclusion differing from that of the experts is made, once again based on no actual evidence but on supposition that, “as I don’t accept that it did implode, then ipso facto, the “experts” who say it did must be wrong”.
This was shown in one commenter’s remarks:
Some bloke giving his opinion on youtube is not evidence of anything.
… which of course ignores the point that he was an expert, in the context of being in the very area he argues. He wasn’t one of the sceptic writers or a debunker or a member of NIST or of anything else.
He was an expert.
When such an expert cannot be debunked and the denier cannot find sufficient “experts” to say the opposite [using the term “expert” in the sense Lawbrain used it], then we get this:
Actually, no, I’ve lost patience with this guff. And I’ve better things to do with my time that wade through even more daft youtube clips.
My case rests on this specific question.
The troll and the shill
One of the key tenets in trolldom or shilldom is to come in on the opposite side and give the good oil up to a point, albeit with some hysteria and demands that something be done – they’re using this on Christianity at the moment – but then to make some claims which either are so OTT and cannot be verified, one way or the other or else to have those claims fall at the first or second hurdles.
Most bloggers in our field are well aware of that trick. Some of the material for CD was unusable because of either shoddy scholarship or else suspicion of shilldom. Where such a situation occurred, I quoted directly from a debunker’s site because, though he is essentially wrong, at least there’s a sort of honesty in his wrongness.
Angry Exile first put the idea of applying Occam’s razor to this situation and I completely agree – let’s not make up any convoluted theories to try to explain away something quite simple, as the debunkers do but let’s KISS.
In fact, the Foreign Policy Journal asks for just that:
NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, was tasked with officially explaining how WTC 7 fell. Their theory is documented in the report entitled Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7.
Many people are under the mistaken impression that NIST’s theory of how WTC 7 fell down is a valid scientific theory. In science however, a valid theory must be the simplest theory available that best explains all the available empirical data. This article will show that the NIST theory is a highly convoluted theory that cannot explain important observations.
 NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
 NIST admits freefall of WTC 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii49BaRDp_A
 Y. Kasai. The International Union of Testing and Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures. Demolition and reuse of concrete and masonry http://books.google.ca/books?id=Q3wOAAAAQAAJ
 9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
 Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,”
The Open Chemical Physics Journal. Volume 2, 2009, pp. 7-31. Available from here
Another simple take, for good measure:
NIST denied explosions [this section is not only about WTC7]:
FDNY Captain Dennis Tardio, Engine Company 7, Page 18 Report From Ground Zero:
“I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top down, one after another, boom, boom, boom.”
The video 9/11, The Greatest Lie Ever Sold contains several excerpts of video reports in which witnesses describe what they saw and heard.
Eyewitness Neil deGrasse Tyson recounted his recollection of explosions at the onset of the collapses in an e-mail he sent to his family on the day after the attack:
I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable — a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion. 5
The second excerpt records the impressions of an amateur videographer:
45 minutes into the taping that we were doing there was an explosion — it was way up where the fire was — and the whole building at that point bellyed out, in flames, and everybody ran.
The third excerpt, a man in talk-show format panel states:
I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions — three thuds — and turned around to see the building we just got out of tend to tip over and fold in on itself.
John Bussey, foreign editor for the Wall Street Journal described the collapse of the South Tower thus:
I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, “My God, they’re going to bring the building down.”
And they, whoever they are, had set charges. In fact the building was imploding down. I saw the explosions, and I thought, ‘This is not a good place to be, because we’re too close to the building, and it’s too easy for the building to topple over.’ 6
Other accounts are in the form of video records. One is of firefighters recalling detonations [MPEG video] in the South Tower, in a firehouse discussion:
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin’
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin’ out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin’
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman1: Then you just sort of … this cloud of s___
just chasin’ you down
fireman4: Where did you go?
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman2: You couldn’t outrun it.
fireman1: You couldn’t outrun it.
fireman4: So what did you do?
fireman2: I jumped behind a battalion car,
I hid under the car, I was waitin’ to die.
In another video, a worker at Ground Zero describes what was found in the rubble in the way of objects other than the Towers’ steel.
You have two 110 story office buildings.
You don’t find a desk.
You don’t find a chair.
You don’t find a telephone, a computer.
The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad,
and it was about this big:
(makes a shape with his hand about 4 inches in diameter)
The building collapsed to dust.
1. The New York Times Company, et al. … v. City of New York Fire Department …,”>Legal Information Institute
2. In New 9/11 Tapes, Glimpses of Loss, Struggles and Valor, 8/16/06
3. Online petitions allow 9/11 skeptics to speak out” Daily Beacon, 2/6/02
4. On the Scene at the WTC, Electrical Wholesaling, 2/1/02
5. An Eye-Witness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks…, The Planetary Society
6. Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind The Breaking News of 9/11, 2002, page 87
7. Broadway Electrical Supply’s Jeff Birnbaum recounts his experience…, 2/13/02
This is one of the key vids dealing with NIST’s claim that there were no explosions:
I would say that that vid and the one by Tom Sullivan need to be actually listened to, word by word.
Craig Bartmer, Former NYPD, and 9/11 First Responder: [i]
“All of a sudden, the radios exploded and everybody started screaming, ‘Get away, get away, get away from it!’ And, I was like a deer in the headlights. And I looked up, and…Two guys that I knew were on the transit radio. I don’t know if those tapes are out there…
And I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. You know the thing started peeling in on itself and, I mean there was an umbrella of crap seven feet over my head that I just stared at.
Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me. And the whole time you’re hearing, ‘THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM!’ So, I, I think I know an explosion when I hear it, you know?
So yeah, I wanna know what took that building down. I don’t think it was a fire and it certainly wasn’t a plane…It had some damage to it but nothing like what they’re saying…I am shocked at the[official] story we’ve heard about it, to be quite honest.”
Kevin McPadden, Emergency Medical Technician, and 9/11 First Responder: [ii]
“And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard “3-2-1”, and he was just saying, ‘Just run for your life, just run for your life.’ And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound…BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something. That, to me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind.”
The chemical aspects
Ignoring the Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did not test for evidence of explosives, because, according to NIST spokesperson Michael Newman:
“If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time… and the tax payers’ money.” [i]
NIST also claimed that no steel was recovered from Building 7. While it is true that virtually all of the steel from Building 7 was destroyed illegally, this claim is blatantly contradicted by Appendix C of the FEMA Building Performance Study, which called for further study of a piece of steel recovered from Building 7 that had experienced a “severe high temperature corrosion attack.” [ii]
The Worcester Polytechnic Institute Journal, Transformations, described this piece of steel, saying: [iii]
“A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges–which are curled like a paper scroll–have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes–some larger than a silver dollar–let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending–but not holes.”
The authors of Appendix C explained that, “the severe erosion found in several beams [in the debris field of Building 7] warranted further consideration.” [iv]
They hypothesized that a eutectic formed in the steel at approximately 1000° C due to a slow sulfidation process in the debris pile, however, independent researchers challenged this hypothesis, arguing that: [v]
“[T]o form a molten iron-oxygen-sulfur eutectic at about 1000° C would require a very high concentration of sulfur… The fact that sulfur evaporates at a low temperature, 445° C, along with the very low levels of elemental sulfur in office buildings appears to preclude the possibility that the eutectic could have formed as a result of a slow sulfidation process in the debris pile.”
The authors of Appendix C concluded by saying, “No clear explanation for the source of sulfur has been identified…A detailed study into the mechanisms of the phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”
[i] Jennifer Abel, “Theories of 9/11,” Hartford Advocate, January 29, 2008. http://www.ae911truth.org/press/23
[ii] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” Washington DC. May 1, 2002, Appendix C, p.1-13. http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
[iii] JKM, “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” WPI – Transformations http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
[iv] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” Washington DC. May 1, 2002, Appendix C, p.1. http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
[v] Jones, Ferrer, Jenkins, Legge, Gourley, Ryan, Farnsworth, Grabbe, “Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction.” Journal of 9/11 Studies. January 19, 2008. http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
[i] Chemists who discovered unreacted incendiary (explosive) material in dust of ground zero:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBL… – Mark Basile -Chemical Engineer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lU-vu2Jv… – Niels Harrit – Chemist
[ii] MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xn…
[iii] Molten Metal And Extremely High Temperatures: Molten metal found at base of where building 7 stood, discussed by ground crew and firemen
[iv] Building Experts Explain the Controlled Demolition of Building 7: go to the 2 minute 25 second mark in the clip. Even the firemen state in advance “keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down” at the 2 minute 44 second mark of the clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUdhdTXHc…
[v] Google search: “Kevin Ryan’s Top 10 Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites”
[vi] 911 – NIST : A New Standard of Deception – Kevin Ryan. (FULL) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oBggYfnt…
[vii] A complete compilation of documented interviews, videos and articles:
So……..were they all lying? Or were they daring to state the obvious, that 9/11 was a ‘controlled demolition’ and must have required insider foreknowledge and assistance?
My purpose in giving all those was not to overwhelm you but to give sufficient to make an informed decision for yourself. For example, there are a few things in Blissful Wisdom I’d be concerned with, although the part relating to WTC7 is sound enough.
The chronology for the BBC World segment presented by the studio anchor and reporter on the scene in NY, Jane Standley:
… has been much commented on:
1. Anchor opens with specific question about the Salomon, even saying it has “also” collapsed;
2. She’s standing on the wrong side of the camera for such a shot because she’s obscuring the Salomon;
3. She answers in general about the WTC and how it’s been completely sealed off etc. but never really addresses the Salomon directly, which is clearly the intent of BBCW in this segment. So Dearieme’s contention that she just didn’t know which building was which holds water;
4. The anchor comes back to this specific building having collapsed and still she doesn’t address that;
5. The ticker though repeats that it has collapsed;
6. They then suddenly lose the feed;
7. Five minutes later, the building collapses, off-air.
So she appears not to know one building from another but those who prepared the report do and it’s repeated and repeated. Jane Standley said in a later interview:
“It’s very unfortunate that this whole conspiracy – kind of – ridiculous situation has grown out of what’s really a very small and very honest mistake.”
Reporting an event before it happens is a “very small and very honest mistake”. R-i-g-h-t. Let’s move on.
What we have here
I’m reticent to bring in the South Tower in an article specifically on WTC7 but I mention it here as an example of the type of thing going on. Here’s an audio from within the South Tower:
… and here is debunker’s reaction below the vid:
Typical truther drivel. I wonder why he fails to mention that Chief Palmer and his crew had barely reached the lowest part of the impact zone when the tower collapsed.
Note that tone again. Actually, he’s also wrong:
The south tower was impacted from floors 78 through 82, Palmer was on the 79th at last contact. He reported two isolated pockets on 78
As there were only small pockets of fire below 79 how did the steel from O to 79 suffer sufficient heat damage to cause total collapse. Huge steel columns, beams and spandrels falling by gravity cant move horizontally to imbed themselves in adjacent buildings.
Brian Clark (84th floor #2:
“The second plane hit six floors below us. We made our way down to where the plane hit and there was no fire to speak of, just a few flames licking up the wall. As we proceeded down the stairs, a couple floors below impact, conditions were normal. The lights were on and fresh air was coming up from below.”
And from another debunker:
I can’t rate this video low enough you morbid fucks. There is NOTHING in these recordings to cast doubt on the fact that there were fires. YOU create a massive strawman when you say fires must exist at all points to initiate a collapse.
Intelligent man, yes? Actually, that was not said at all. Multiple people plus the audio-tape indicate there was certainly fire, enough to make people jump out of the building. It indicates the fire was not intense enough to vapourize them at that point. There was fire, yes but limited to certain floors.
It was also not said by skeptics that fires must exist at all points – that was the line the government took, that there was a raging inferno which melted the supports. The skeptics say there were few fires below 78. The debunker has created the strawman, not the skeptics.
If we can set aside the hysteria, the ad hominem attacks, the auto-dismissal, the mockery, the marginalization of the author and all such goodies, all that this author is asking is that, on the grounds that both NIST and the government do not have the correct story, let alone the withholding of evidence and prevention of evidence either being examined or freely coming out, there is sufficient evidence to warrant a reinvestigation.
Such was the case with JFK, such was the case with David Kelly, the latter having the whole blogosphere up in arms.
Why not with this? Is there not a process in law whereby evidence is heard by an independent jury?
Why not in this? Why the need to deny an investigation? Is it for one side only to determine whether there need be an investigation or not?
For example, if you accused me of some crime and I said, “Nah, there’s no evidence, I’m sick of watching vids of me actually doing it, nothing here, move on,” is that acceptable in the United Kingdom or in the United States of America as a basis for a legal system?
Or if so many the other side continue to insist that there really is a case to answer, should not a proper inquiry be set up to pursue this, just as the House Committee had to eventually do with JFK?
Just as with the Hutton fiction?
If you say they are different situations, then who are you to make this judicial decision? You are one of the antagonists, just as I am. Surely that’s for a tribunal to decide?
No doubt some debunker will set to it, not to answer these points, as they can’t be answered but to put a completely different case, relying on the explode NIST report and 911 debunked or similar, possibly even believing this is equal and opposite.
There’s hardly been an issue which is less equal and opposite.
This issue needs addressing, rather than denying.