Anomalies of the WTC 7 Collapse - More

evidence and info

It Really Ain’t Rocket Science, Just Basic Physics!!

2 Hours 10 Minutes Prior To Global Collapse Due To Fire Alone

WTC7 Collapse Reported 30 Minutes Prior to Collapse

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE??

LOOK IN THE RED CIRCLES!!
Posted by: "James Patton" james_patton@yahoo.com james_patton
Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:31 am (PST)

On September 11 2001, two jet airliners hit two buildings (WTC1 and WTC2) in New York
City, and subsequently THREE buildings (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7) totally failed and
collapsed, almost at free-fall speed, and pretty-much neatly into their own footprints.

This was an unprecedented historical event.

Here I want to particularly consider the many anomalies of the collapse of the 47 story
steel and concrete World Trade Center Building 7 (aka WTC7 or the Salomon Brothers
building).

WTC7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.
Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less
than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.

However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete
account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." You
can watch the collapse videos here.
http://911research. wtc7.net/ wtc/evidence/ videos/index. html#building7

Finally, on 11/20/08, more than seven years after 9/11, the Federal government
published its final report on the collapse of WTC 7, which "found that the fires on
multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires
experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event."
http://www.nist. gov/public_ affairs/techbeat /tbx2008_ 1120_wtc7. htm

The government report alleges WTC Building 7 is the first and only steel-framed high-rise
building in the history of mankind to collapse simply as the result of a fire.

Let's consider this claim more carefully.

--

First, let's compare a fire-induced building collapse to deliberate building implosion.

For a building to collapse straight down, at (almost) freefall speed, as WTC7 did, all of the
load bearing supports would have had to fail at exactly the same time, removing the
resistance from the upper collapsing floors.

The claim that the collapse was the result of a fire requires the fire be equally distributed
throughout the entire floor of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of
time, so that all the load bearing members would fail at the exact same moment.

Do you find this plausible?

Watch here:
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=RveHSPbtTmY

Particularly watch 4:23 on, and take a look at a real fire-induced building collapse.
Notice how the collapse is partial, uneven and nowhere near free-fall acceleration.

Measurement of the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center proves freefall
collapse rate.
See http://www.911speak out.org for more.
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=POUSJm- -tgw

[Researcher David Chandler is a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.AE911Tru th.org/]

Notice the uneven and progressive way the fire-based collapse happened.
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=RveHSPbtTmY

As would be expected, not all the load bearing support members failed at the same
instance, as must have been the case in WTC7.

You are challenged to find a counter-example - if you can!

--

Also consider the WTC7 collapse analysis here.

Particularly look at the photos of buildings collapsed by an earthquake. They show the
typical result of a single load bearing member failure - the buildings are tipped over onto
the initiating point, similar to chopping down a tree.

For a building to collapse into its own footprint, as WTC 7 did, ALL of the load bearing
members must fail at the exact same moment. This is achieved in controlled demolitions,
as is agreed by Dutch controlled demolition expert Danny Jawenko, who feels sure WTC7
was a controlled demolition.
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=y2E65WTxd1U

http://whatreallyha ppened.com/ WRHARTICLES/ wtc7.html

http://whatreallyha ppened.com/ WRHARTICLES/ cutter.html
http://firefighters for911truth. org/?page_ id=158
http://www.ae911tru th.org/

--

Then let's look at Premature Media Announcements of Collapse of WTC7

Another anomaly is that the collapse of WTC7 was reported by CNN (one hour and 10
minutes in advance) and BBC (23 minutes in advance) as breaking news based on just
received information. CNN anchor Aaron Brown said "We are getting information now."
CNN anchor Judy Woodruff: "We're hearing for the first time" (See Appendix.) BBC
anchor: "We've got some news just coming in".

The collapse was also reported prematurely by Fox News.

Fox news 5 reports WTC 7 collapse before it happens

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=cueNiZSfftI
CNN's Aaron Brown, one hour and ten minutes in advance of the collapse: "We are
getting information now that one of the other buildings, Building 7, in the World Trade
Center complex, is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing.. ."
WTC 7 Foreknowledge?
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=N1LetB0z8_ o

The BBC anchor, Jane Standley, said 23 minutes before the collapse: "the Salomon
Brothers Building in New York, right in the heart of Manhattan, has also collapsed", even
though the building could be seen standing directly behind her..

BBC Reports Live that WTC7 has fallen, yet it still stands
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=ejjySUVOGKA

There has been no adequate explanation of this premature reporting, but obviously the
reporters must have been getting their information from somewhere. Where?

--

Now consider the Building Owner, Larry Silverstein' s, Controversial WTC7 "PULL"
comment

In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired on PBS, 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.."
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=7WYdAJQV100

PULL term explained - and debunked?

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=JDqv4f3h1b4

--

Architects, Engineers, and Scientists Analyze NIST's WTC 7 Final Report

And Find Weaknesses and Contradictions in the NIST Report

Finally, after almost seven years, NIST (the National Institute of Standards and
Technology) has released a draft copy of their final report to explain the total failure and
(supposedly) fire-induced collapse of WTC7.

NIST claims they "found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event" and rule
out the use of explosives in the destruction of WTC7, although they self admit they didn’t
chemically test for explosives residue. (How can you find something if you don't look for
it?)

However, despite the fact that it took NIST more than three years of investigation,
involving somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 man-hours of labor to compile this
1000+ page Report, members of the public were only given a mere three weeks in which
to read this hefty Report and comment.

Never-the-less, a group of scientists, scholars, engineers and architects, who have

dedicated a lot of time and energy to researching the collapse of the World Trade Center
buildings, have already found many areas that need to be revised and re-examined.

These numerous problems, they claim, severely undermine the veracity and usefulness of
NIST's report.

"NIST's solution appears to have been crafted to please its client", said Kamal Obeid, "and
independent structural engineers will find problems with every step of NIST's
complicated theoretical collapse mechanism."

You can read their comments here:

Public Comments on NIST WTC7 Draft Report

http://911research. wtc7.net/ letters/nist/ WTC7Comments. html

--

Firefighters for 911 Truth - WTC7

We believe TOWER 7 is the crux of the entire investigation. There was no official report
as to how a 47 story concrete and steel high rise, that was not struck by an airplane,
collapsed at near free-fall speed into it’s own footprint. That is until this week
(8/21/2008) - almost 7 years later after unrelenting public pressure.

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

However, this is not true. Within a month of 9/11, NYC fire commissioner Thomas Von
Essen, a 30-year NYFD vet, set up interviews with fire, port authority police and EMT
first responders to record their initial impressions of what they experienced on Sept 11.

The stories of 503 men and women ran to 12,000 pages. Graeme MacQueen, a recently
retired religious studies professor, read them all. In addition to the heartrending nature
of many of the stories, the consistent theme was of hearing, feeling and seeing explosions,
a controlled demolition.

MacQueen (McMaster University, Ontario, Canada) narrowed down the testimony of 118
first responders as especially court-worthy testimony. But he notes the entire testimony
was excluded by the 9/11 Commission, as well as the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST).

Video prepared for the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference, June 22-24, 2007 /
snowshoefilms

Part 1 - 503 9/11 First Responders - Their Testimony is Ignored

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=IwQa5eokieY

Part 2 - Explosive Eyewitness Testimony

Prof MacQueen finds 118 eyewitness testimonies which are consistent
with the theory of controlled demolition, so why were these ignored?

You can watch the eyewitness 9/11 testimony for yourself.

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=cZ4dVo5QgYg& NR=1

9/11 NYC Firefighters Controlled Demolition

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=SXD3bAbZCow

As for NIST's claim that "there was no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event"
(despite the fact they did no tests for chemical residues), then look here at Dr. Steven
Jones' chemical analysis of WTC dust samples where he finds evidence of
thermite/thermate, a chemical steel-cutting compound:
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=-FCqsIgCcZQ
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=k0XSPPuxglI

Also see the evidence for energetic materials at the WTC Ground-Zero (such as the
explosive thermite), as found here:
http://www.springer link.com/ content/f67q6272 583h86n4/

In conclusion, the NIST report fails to convince, and here are some more reasons why:
http://firefighters for911truth. org/?page_ id=158

--

Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth

WTC7 - Questioning the NIST Report

NIST's solution appears to have been crafted to please its client, said Kamal Obeid, and
independent structural engineers will find problems with every step of NIST's
complicated theoretical collapse mechanism.

... the visible WTC collapse, Donly noted, proceeded at near freefall speed with no
apparent resistance from the steel framework. Many columns must be cut simultaneously
to drop a building straight down, he pointed out.

[If NIST has nothing to hide, they should] release to independent researchers the
thousands of photos and videos in their WTC archives.

http://www.ae911tru th.org/info/ 37

--

"We believe that there is sufficient doubt about

the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation
must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into
the possible use of explosives that may have been
the actual cause behind the destruction of
the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7."

- Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11,

signed by more than 500 Architects and Engineers
"Those who have suggested 9/11 was an inside job
have a much stronger case than those who are trying
to support the official narrative of the 19 hijackers."

- Professor Graeme MacQueen

Founding Director, Centre for Peace Studies
McMaster University, Hamilton Ontario, Canada

http://www.patriots question911. com/professors. html