WTC7 Questions and Suspicions

Very Damning Video on Official WTC7 Lies

2012-02-05T04:08:00.001-08:00

Blatant lies about lies about the use of "shear studs" in WTC7. Note the 33, in the official collapse story-- and a key part of the story rests on the W33 girder (naturally):

WTC7 Went Down Faster or As Fast As a Known Controlled Demolition

2011-10-10T18:30:00.000-07:00

from George Washington.

"A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse"

2011-02-26T09:23:00.000-08:00

This year will mark the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 disaster. In these 10 years, not only have extremely important scientific questions about this tragedy gone unanswered, but they have even been ridiculed to the point of deranged absurdity. We owe a valid scientific explanation to the 3000 victims on that day, the steadily dying health-stricken first responders, the dead and wounded soldiers, and the untold thousands upon thousands of dead and injured Afghans and Iraqis resulting from the terrifying never-ending “war on terror”. Critics of those skeptical of the official story of 9/11 have often objected that an alternative theory has never been put forth. To that end, this article will put forth a scientific theory for one important aspect of the 9/11 event, the Building 7 collapse.

(Photo: http://911research.wtc7.net)

On September 11, 2001 a third building came down. This building was 7 World Trade Center (WTC 7), a 47-story building about the width and length of a football field. 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[1]. 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.[2] This article will show that the NIST theory is a highly convoluted theory that cannot explain important observations.

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.[3] 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. While it could possibly be argued that the model does show some buckling occurring over eight stories, it most certainly does not show a period of free-fall. So NIST’s theory has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for the fact of free-fall. In other words the NIST theory cannot explain key empirical data.

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”.[4] 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. Since NIST’s theory does not explain fundamental facts of the WTC 7 incident and other important facts are so far unreplicated, we can categorically state that NIST’s theory is in no way scientific. At best, it could be referred to as faith-based pseudo-science. Since the NIST theory is in no way scientific, competent conscientious scientists must reject it in favor of a science-based theory.

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.[5] 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. So unlike the official story, the controlled demolition theory does explain all the observables: the rapid onset of collapse, the largely symmetrical collapse into the building’s footprint, the roof line kink causing the building to fall in on itself, minimizing damage to other buildings, the intricate roll to the south at the end of the collapse away from valuable real estate, and the free-fall period.

There definitely are problems with the controlled demolition explosives theories. For instance, although there is some evidence of explosive sounds,[6] 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,[7] 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.[8] 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.[9]

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. I strongly urge all scientists and scientifically-oriented individuals to support Scientists For 9/11 Truth (http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/) in calling for an real unbiased scientific investigation of the 9/11 tragedy.

Notes

[1] NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

[2] Merriam-Webster.com Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Theory in Science

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occam%27s%20razor

[3] NIST admits freefall of WTC 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii49BaRDp_A

[4] http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-12/nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data

[5] Shaped Charge Explosion Compared to Explosion at WTC http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/30834556

[6] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

[7] 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

[8] 9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

[9] 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: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Surprise-- the NIST WTC7 Collapse Simulation Is a Joke

2010-11-07T14:15:00.000-08:00

Larry Silverstein Was on the Phone on 9/11 with His Insurance Carrier About the Controlled Demolition of WTC7

2010-04-24T12:32:00.000-07:00

Hmmm, never heard this before. But apparently this is evidence that WTC7 was NOT a controlled demolition. That, and the fact that WTC7 made no sound as it went down, apparently. Riiight.

Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.

While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

SERIOUSLY-- ARE WE REALLY EXPECTED TO BELIEVE THAT SILVERSTEIN ASKED FOR SOMEONE TO WIRE UP WTC7 FOR CONTROLLED DEMOLITION AFTER THE TWIN TOWERS WENT DOWN? REALLY??? AND WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE FOUNDATION WAS SO UNSTABLE ANYWAY??? GRRR. THIS PISSES ME OFF.

By the way, the author of this FauxNews piece is Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, a total Bush toady. He apparently is in regular contact with KKKarl Rove. So certainly take anything from this asshat with a grain of salt.

Good round up of this issue here:

EPIC FAIL: Fox News hit piece against 9/11 truth and Jesse Ventura inadvertently reveals a shocking truth; WTC leaseholder was "on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building" (Prison Planet)

A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building -- since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building’s collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

“A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building's imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.

However, obviously aware of how it would impact his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.

In June 2005, Silverstein told New York Post journalist Sam Smith that his infamous “pull it” comment, which has been cited as proof that Silverstein planned to take down the building with explosives, “meant something else”.

In January 2006, Silverstein’s spokesperson Dara McQuillan told the U.S. State Department that the “pull it” comment meant to withdraw firefighters from the building (despite the fact that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7 as we shall later cover). There was no mention whatsoever of any plan to demolish the building before it fell.

Shapiro’s faux pas has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied, presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental.

For over five years since the infamous PBS documentary was aired in which Silverstein states that the decision was made to “pull” the building, a construction term for controlled demolition, debunkers have attempted to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics in fudging the meaning behind the WTC leaseholder’s comments.

“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse,” said Silverstein.

Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein meant to “pull” the firefighters from the building due to the danger the structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by Silverstein’s spokesman, however, both the FEMA report, the New York Times and even Popular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7.

Another clip from the same documentary clearly illustrates that the term “pull” is industry jargon for a controlled demolition.

“While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was,” writes Shapiro in his Fox News hit piece.

Shapiro’s contention that the 47-story building simply collapsed into its own footprint within seven seconds without making a sound, a feat only ever witnessed in world history on 9/11 alone, is contradicted by numerous other first-hand eyewitnesses.

Contradicting Shapiro’s claim that the collapse of the building was quiet, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse.

“I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah 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,” said Bartmer.

EMT Indira Singh, a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management, told the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, “After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke – it is entirely possible – I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage.”

The host asked Singh, “Did they actually use the word “brought down” and who was it that was telling you this?,” to which Singh responded, “The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re gonna have to bring it down’ and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don’t know.”

Another EMT named Mike who wished to remain anonymous wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be “pulled” and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

“There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us,” he stated.

Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.

Mike’s report of a countdown preceding the collapse of WTC 7 was backed up by Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.

In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.

“It’s blowin’ boy.” … “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” … “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” … “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”

Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard ‘crimp’ in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent ’squibs’ of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.

Veteran news anchor Dan Rather shared the view that the building looked like a controlled demolition during news coverage of the event on CBS.

Several news agencies, including the BBC and CNN, reported that the building had already collapsed 26 minutes and as much as over an hour before it actually fell.

Footage broadcast 20 minutes before Building 7 fell shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. A Separate BBC broadcast shows reporters discussing the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened.

Just about every sentence of Shapiro’s hit piece is contradicted by numerous other eyewitnesses, so his feigned righteous indignation in ranting, “I was there. I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks,” fails to ring true.

However, the most damning aspect of the article is Shapiro’s inadvertent revelation that Larry Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance company pushing for the building to be demolished, which is precisely what happened later in the day, and as innumerable eyewitnesses as well as video footage and physical evidence prove, the collapse of WTC 7 could have been nothing else than a controlled demolition, which would place Silverstein’s $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged.

Shapiro’s testimony, intended to debunk questions surrounding the official story behind 9/11, has only succeeded in raising more, because it completely contradicts Larry Silverstein’s insistence that he never considered deliberately demolishing WTC 7 with explosives.

More: Silverstein Was Calling Lawyer To Get Double Insurance On WTC On The Evening Of 9/11

Via email……

In response to your excellent new article, “Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11,” I thought you might find the following of use:

Firstly, you can watch a recent CBS interview in which Silverstein claims that he should have been in the WTC on 9/11, but his wife insisted he go to a dermatologist’s appointment, thereby saving his life:

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=dCJDTFzLiEO_a32xTRfMdMMYQd1nHV1N&play=true

Secondly, it is worth noting that already on the evening of 9/11, Silverstein was calling his lawyers, to see if he could make a double claim on his WTC insurance policy. See this 9/11 Timeline entry:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091201doubleinsurance&scale=0

The key information is from pp. 18-19 of Steven Brill’s book, After: How America Confronted the September 12 Era. Brill wrote:

“Real estate developer Larry Silverstein was on his way to a dermatologist on the morning of the 11th, instead of the Trade Center--the multibillion-dollar complex where he had leveraged a $14 million personal investment in a partnership that owned the leasing rights to the buildings into bragging rights as the complex’s putative owner. Silverstein would tell the author five months later that he was so shocked and sickened by the destruction and by the loss of four of his employees that morning that he did not think he focused on issues like insurance or finances until “perhaps two weeks later.” In fact, according to his own lawyers, by that evening he was on the phone with them worrying whether his effort to shave costs when he’d bought insurance would now come back to hurt him, or whether his insurance policies could be read in a way that would construe the attacks as two separate, insurable incidents rather than one. The difference was roughly $3.55 billion versus $7.1 billion--the kind of gap corporate litigators dream of.”

[End of quote]

If you want to verify this quote for yourself, you can search Brill’s book at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743237099/

Demolition Countdown Witnesses

2010-01-14T04:24:00.000-08:00

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Friday, February 9, 2007

Two more ground zero emergency rescue personnel are on the record as stating they were told Building 7 was going to be brought down on 9/11 hours before its symmetrical implosion, completely contradicting the official explanation of accidental collapse.

The new revelations provoke urgent questions about how a building was rigged with explosives within hours when such a process normally takes weeks or months and why the decision was taken to demolish the building amidst the chaos of the situation on that day.

Yesterday we reported on the testimony of an anonymous EMT named Mike who told Loose Change producer Dylan Avery that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper adjacent the twin towers that was not hit by a plane yet imploded symmetrically later in the afternoon on 9/11, was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

Shortly after this article was released we uncovered more astounding testimony of ground zero rescue workers who are fully public and on the record in repeating the same claims, that Building 7 was brought down deliberately and that its collapse was not accidental as the government claims.

Indira Singh was a volunteer civilian Emergency Medical Technician at the World Trade Center on September 11th. She was a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management. Singh was responsible for setting up triage sites for the seriously injured and walking wounded. These sites were closed down and consolidated one by one as the day wore on. Appearing on the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, Singh describes her experience to host Bonnie Faulkner. Click here to listen with commentary by Alex Jones.

SINGH: "After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage. That I don't know I can't attest to the validity of that all I can attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."

HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"

SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don't know."

As is discussed elsewhere in this article, the feasibility and logic of bringing the building down on 9/11 is up for debate, but what is not debatable is the fact that Silverstein Properties, NIST, FEMA and the federal government have all knowingly lied in claiming in official reports that the building came down solely as a result of damage from the towers and that the collapse of the building was not aided by means of intentionally placed explosives.

The following video from CNN clearly shows firefighters and police telling the public to get back because Building 7 was about to come down and in the words of the cameraman was about to "blow up."

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.

On September 9 2006, McPadden told an audience at the Community Church in New York City how while he was stationed in a Red Cross operations center, he was told that Building 7 was going to be brought down. Click here for the audio.

McPADDEN: "They said you know you've got to stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down, they're not sure if it's stable or not, so they were holding a line off because they had knowledge that something was gonna happen. Well, they pushed us back a little bit....a couple of minutes later they started coming down....people started coming back out to the street, I watched five New York City buses jam packed with people wanting to do search and rescue head down there towards Building 7 - people walk out into the middle of the street to see these people off, like bon voyage and right then Building 7 came down."

McPadden then describes the scene as a "stampede" as people ran over each other in their attempts to flee.

The testimony of these individuals meshes with others in confirming that Building 7 was deliberately brought down on the day of 9/11, a fact that eviscerates official investigations into Building 7 as nothing more than part of an orchestrated cover-up.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

Extreme Heat in the WTC7 Rubble

2009-08-28T06:02:00.001-07:00

China syndrome at the WTC!
Also, isn't it very odd the way much of the interior of the building seems to be reduced to dirt?

Thanks to AP for the link.

Video of WTC7 Shortly Before It Came Down

2008-12-28T06:00:00.000-08:00

Plans in Place for Taking WTC7 Down

2008-12-26T05:10:00.000-08:00

Newly uncovered video from 9/11 featuring an interview with FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio on MSNBC confirms that there was a plan to deliberately demolish WTC Building 7, as was originally indicated in Larry Silverstein’s infamous statement on the PBS documentary, America Rebuilds.

In the clip, Rastuccio responds to the host’s statement that “You guys knew this was coming all day,” by stating, “We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own or it would be taken down, I would imagine that it came down on its own.”

Though Rastuccio expresses his opinion that the building had collapsed without the aid of explosives, he admits that a plan had been in place to deliberately demolish the structure.

New Views of WTC7 Damage

2008-12-06T21:04:00.000-08:00

Good views of the amazingly long straight gash and new views of the damage to the very top. Not clear what all the white sections are. In some places, the white segments appear to be white sheets or curtains in the windows, in other places, not so clear.

Screen shots (click to enlarge):

The undamaged tower-- south face-- those white panels are there at the top:

4:50 or so-- is that really NYC in the background, with large concrete grain silos and a dark brick factory???

The Initial, Failed Demolition of WTC7

2008-11-04T06:47:00.000-08:00

I just realized that is what CNN's Allen Dodds Frank was talking about, when he reported explosions and another building collapse at 10:45 am-- AFTER the north tower went down. Now Frank doesn't specifically mention WTC7 in his report, but the most logical assumption is that he was referring to WTC7 when he refers to 50 stories going down. Frank was obviously wrong about WTC7 going down, but clearly something happened to spur his report and now we know that the demise of WTC7 was "in the works" early on.

It's crucial to note that a few people specifically reported explosions in WTC7, very early in the day, well before it finally went down:
Tris McCall
Barry Jennings
Michael Guttenberg

(From here and here.)

Of course, the media was predicting the collapse of WTC7 for several hours before it finally it went down. CNN's Rose Arce was reporting the imminent collapse of WTC7 as early as 12:22 PM:

Anonymous Physicist has hypothesized that the initial demolition of WTC7 failed due to "fizzled" nukes, and I think that is the best explanation we have for now of what happened to WTC7.

New Video Found-- Shows More of the Fall

2008-11-02T05:47:00.000-08:00

Watch WTC7 in How to Videos | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
Via.

NIST Blames WTC7 Free-Fall Speed Demise on "Thermal Expansion"

2008-08-28T05:24:00.000-07:00

Whole bunch o' crap here from NIST:

GAITHERSBURG, Md.— The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”

“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building’s construction—namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below— did not play a significant role in the collapse.

According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.

Yeah, whatever.

In any case, the obvious controlled demolition of WTC7 is ultimately a distraction from the nuking of the WTC.

Seven "Solved"!!!

2008-07-05T07:16:00.001-07:00

The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center.

The FINAL mystery? Puh-leeze.

SOLVED? Somehow I think their definition of solved is different than mine.

This part is funny:

With no steel from Tower 7 to study, investigators have instead made four extremely complex computer models worked out to the finest detail.

No steel? No problem!!! They can use their highly rigged computer models to explain everything!

Because they sure don't want to be forced to explain "steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures".

So, definitely, it was a good thing that "all of the thousands of tonnes of steel from the skyscraper were taken away to be melted down."

Because, if there's no evidence, then clearly there's no crime!!!

The Nuclear Borer Hypothesis

2007-07-03T10:05:00.000-07:00

1) Now, assuming WTC7 did in fact have five basement levels, even if you vaporized those five lower levels completely (not an easy feat), it is not at all clear that this would cause the building to go straight down so fast. In other words, the building might go down five levels fast, but slow down after that as intact structural elements started doing their job. Remember the failed building demolition where the bottom of the tower was blown out, the tower dropped a few stories, and then the tower stopped and refused to collapse further. This is why the nuclear borer hypothesis is attractive, as it can explain the initial twenty to thirty story free-fall drop. Presumably, after the building has dropped 200 feet or so, it has gained enough momentum to keep falling at high speed and cause the building to truly collapse in on itself.

2) There are two other concerns with the nuclear borer hypothesis:

-- presumably it would have had to drill through manhattan bedrock below WTC7, but of course the machine was made to drill through deep underground rock

-- since WTC7 actually was rebuilt on the same site, if there WAS a deep hole beneath the rubble, one wonders what was done to fill in the hole

3) Remember, WTC7 housed offices for the DOD, the IRS, the Secret Service, the CIA, and possibly even the NSA. There is little doubt the clean-up of WTC7 debris would have proceeded under maximum secrecy.

4) If the nuclear borer hypothesis is not what happened, how WAS WTC7 done? I find it unlikely it was conventional controlled demolition, due to the perfection of the fall and the lack of obvious charges going off. Someone could of course posit a magic silent disintegration ray that disintegrated the building from the bottom up, but I would certainly like more specifics on something like that.

More thoughts on what happened and what didn't happen to WTC7 can be read here.

Lastly, here is a simple overview of the WTC7 issue-- and why the rubble was critical.

Insurance Claim Litigation Fails

2007-04-13T14:10:00.000-07:00

Mound Cotton, on Behalf of AMEC Construction Management, Inc., Wins Second Dismissal from Seven World Trade Center Building Collapse Litigation

2007-03-30 16:34:01 -
NEW YORK, March 30 /PRNewswire/ -- As reported on the front page of the New York Law Journal on March 21, 2007, Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass ("MCWG") obtained the dismissal of AMEC Construction Management, Inc. ("AMEC") from a $400 million dispute involving claims of negligent design and construction in connection with the September 11, 2001 collapse of Seven World Trade Center ("7 WTC"). MCWG's effort was led by partners Mark J. Weber, Douglas K. Eisenstein, and Daniel Markewich.

United States District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York rejected claims against AMEC and the other contractors, designers and architects that helped build and maintain certain 24-hour emergency operations centers at 7 WTC, which caught fire and was destroyed following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the adjacent Twin Towers. All of the similarly situated defendants joined in MCWG's lead motion for AMEC.

In the massive litigation that followed the collapse of 7 WTC, plaintiff Consolidated Edison of New York sued the owners, lessees, and tenants of the building, as well as all companies that allegedly were involved in the design or construction of New York City's Office of Emergency Management and the Salomon Brothers (now Citigroup) build-out at 7 WTC, which included the installation of diesel fuel tanks as part of emergency back-up power systems. The plaintiff contends that improper design, construction, and installation -- particularly the existence of large diesel fuel tanks in the building associated with the power systems -- caused the collapse of the building, which in turn destroyed Con Edison's substation. The complaint alleges that the diesel fuel made the fires burn so intensely that the building's structural support was compromised, and it was impossible for firefighters to quell the blaze.

MCWG obtained a previous dismissal of AMEC in January 2006 in the main action, where the court accepted AMEC's argument that it did not owe Con Ed a duty of care because there was no contractual privity nor was there the "functional equivalent of privity" under controlling precedent. Six months after the original dismissal, however, AMEC and the other contractors and design professionals were brought back into the case in the third-party action filed by the 7 WTC landlord, Seven World Trade Company, L.P. and Silverstein Properties, Inc. ("Silverstein"), for contribution and indemnification to the extent that Silverstein was found liable for damages related to the collapse.

In dismissing Silverstein's third-party action, Judge Hellerstein again agreed with AMEC that there was no functional equivalent of privity -- notwithstanding the landlord's direct nexus with 7 WTC as opposed to Con Ed's status as an adjacent neighbor of the building. Quoting from AMEC's reply brief, the judge noted that dismissal was appropriate because AMEC and the other contractors, designers and architects did not have the particular purpose of benefiting Silverstein merely because the system was located in Silverstein's building when the "very end and aim" of the work was to benefit Citigroup, not Silverstein.

In addition, the judge agreed with AMEC that his rationale for holding in Industrial Risk Insurers v. Citigroup and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 387 F.Supp.2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) that Silverstein had expressly assumed the risk of the emergency power system in its lease with Salomon applied in this case as well. Thus, Silverstein was barred from claiming that AMEC owed it a duty of care for the same reasons that Silverstein's insurers had been barred from asserting that Citigroup owed a duty of care in relation to the emergency power system.

Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass is an internationally recognized law firm practicing insurance, reinsurance, general commercial litigation, liability defense and business, securities and commodities law. Founded in 1933, Mound Cotton is based in NYC, with additional offices in San Francisco, Newark, and Garden City, New York.

The Amazingly Straight WTC7 Gash

2007-04-09T10:13:00.001-07:00

Here's a good picture of it.

The gash is down the front of the facade
.......................................................here

As I said before, it is hard to think how falling debris from WTC1 could do this. If anything, it looks more like a huge laser fried the facade straight down from above.

The gash doesn't correspond to an elevator shaft.

The facade also has a strange mottled whitish discoloration, I have no idea what made that.

If you think it is a trick of light, you should know that even NIST admitted there was a large scar down the front of WTC7.

Here's a discussion of it on the LooseChange forum.

Compendium of Demolition Clips

2007-04-09T10:02:00.000-07:00

Key WTC7 Topics

2006-12-30T18:40:00.000-08:00

1. suspicious tenants--

25th Floor Tenants: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of Defense (DOD), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

24th Floor Tenant: IRS

23th Floor Tenant: Office of Emergency Management (OEM)-- Giuliani's "bunker"

11th-13th Floors Tenant: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

9th and 10th Floors Tenant: US Secret Service

The rest of the floors are mostly banking, stock broker and insurance entities.

2. built over substation -- awkward lower foundation?

3. exact cause extent of fire-- unknown, why was it localized more to south side (as it apparently was?)

4. extent of damage from WTC1 debris (other mechanisms)-- unknown

5. fireproofing should have been intact

6. why not more effort to fight the fires if a valuable building?

7. almost perfect free-fall straight down collapse, rubble in almost perfect footprint

8. expected/predicted/planned collapse-- videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9TL_PEMkdM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVdnFFNbPK8

9. do videos of WTC7 falling show demolition squibs? Controversy over this?

10. explosion sounds (9/11 Eyewitness, YouTube videos)

11. Silverstein's "pull it" comment"

12. diesel fuel tanks -- mostly on lower floors and basement -- much of it recovered unburned-- how much burned?

13. wilted huge steel Calder structure in front of WTC7-- sign of exotic weaponry?

14. demolition of WTC7 a cover-story for WTC1 and WTC2 demolitions?

Good WTC7 references--

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/WTC_ch5.htm
(different links to same article and comment on the FEMA report)

9/11 Eyewitness

Was WTC7 the "Cover-Story" for Unconventional Demolition of WTC1 and WTC2?

2006-12-20T04:17:00.000-08:00

WTC7 serves as a beautiful official cover-story. Thus, at the official propaganda level, gov't officials could point to WTC7 and say "see-- another large steel-framed skyscraper completely collapsed from structural damage and fire."

WTC7 also serves as a perfect limited hang-out for covering-up the unconventional demolition of WTC1 and WTC2. Thus, at the limited hangout propaganda level, gov't moles/disinfo agents could point to WTC7 and say "see-- this building was clearly brought down by standard controlled demolition-- that must be what happened for WTC1 and WTC2."

I think the evidence strongly supports the idea that WTC1 and WTC2 were brought down by high-tech unconventional weapons (e.g. Star Wars-type beam weapon devices), and that a major goal of the 9/11 perpetrators and their disinfo agents is to keep this covered up at all costs.

Moreover, I think it is likely that WTC7 was brought down in a more standard controlled demolition fashion-- and in a manner for EVERYONE to see-- precisely to serve as a cover-story for the WTC towers.

Here is what I say about WTC7:

2006-11-01T05:16:00.000-08:00

-- I always thought Silverstein's "pull it" comment was bizarre and confusing and not really a smoking gun (though possibly disinfo)

-- yes, WTC7 WAS damaged from the fall of WTC1 and was on fire

-- the extent of the damage is unclear and photos showing the damage more clearly have been with-held from the public for some reason

-- there is no evidence for massive raging fires at WTC7, there were hardly any fires on the north face of the building

-- the big question is: how can asymmetrical fires and asymmetrical structural damage cause a perfectly symmetrical free-fall collapse?

--even NIST says they don't know exactly why WTC7 fell

-- NIST says that WTC7 fell at 13 seconds not 7 seconds. But this timing is only because the penthouse structure of WTC7 took several seconds to collapse. In fact, the main structure of WTC7 fell at essentially free fall speed: 7 seconds

-- the fall of WTC7 was much too smooth and controlled to be from a building completely breaking apart and collapsing from gravity

-- the fireproofing of WTC7 was not damaged so why should the fires have caused the collapse?

-- whatever happened at WTC7 probably wasn't purely conventional demolition, and some sort of beam weapon may have been used like at WTC1 and WTC2

-- firemen saying that WTC7 was going to come down may have been saying that after seeing what happened to WTC1 and WTC2. It doesn't imply specific knowledge of demolition. On the other hand, the firemen's statements do not RULE OUT demolition. The statements are ambiguous, just like Silverstein's comments.

-- it seems quite possible that WTC7 was somewhat unstable and that firemen were indeed worried that it would collapse, and a similar device that was used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2 was used to bring down WTC7.

-- WTC7 had several suspicious tenants such as the CIA and Secret Service, not to mention various financial services companies, that may have wanted to destroy evidence

-- If WTC7 was in fact highly valuable, why wasn't more effort made to save it?

-- questioning the WTC7 collapse is not kooky, nor is questioning anything else about 9/11, especially since the bulk of the evidence implies 9/11 was an inside job and a huge fraud on the American people