Why does NIST hide the long straight gash in WTC7?

A couple of weeks ago I posted some images and footage of what appeared to be a long straight gash in the south face of Building 7. It's visible from the roofline down to about the 20th floor. This footage was discovered in the 9/11 archive that was released by archive.org. The footage can be verified here.

A question that remained was why NIST has not shown any photographs of this gash.

ABC, 11 september, 13:45

High quality XviD (640x480, deinterlaced)
Original MPEG2 (cut from the original, not reencoded, 480x480 interlaced)

ABC, 11 september 13:54

High quality XviD (640x480, deinterlaced)
Original MPEG2 (cut from the original, not reencoded, 480x480 interlaced)

Different theories were proposed to explain how this damage occured and why NIST hadn't reproduced these images in their report. The figure below indicates that they were aware of it. Don't forget that NIST is still withholding thousands of photographs and videos from the public. The footage of the gash is no secret, it was broadcast live on September 11th by ABC News. There's no reason to assume that NIST did not know about the gash.

The only photograph they show of this "roof and upper level debris damage" is this image:

Now why would NIST do that? Why would they not show the total extend of the "roof and upper level debris damage"? Surely they would like to present as much evidence of debris damage as possible. Was it to hide the fact that this gash was created when the controlled demolition failed? Most likely not. As can be seen in the video below, WTC7 was indeed hit by falling debris from the collapse of the North Tower.

The gash is right between two outer columns (as in the NIST figure) and might have simply been caused by falling debris that took out part of the floors between these columns, leading to to a small and localized 'progressive collapse' such as was observed in the Ronan Point apartment building in 1968.

So why did NIST not reproduce any photograph that showed the gash?

Because they needed the testimony of Captain Chris Boyle to exaggerate the claims about the hole in the south face. Or as David Ray Griffin put it in his article "The destruction of the Twin Towers: why the official account can not be true".

According to Fellini’s testimony, there was a four-floor hole between the third and sixth floors. In the telling of Captain Chris Boyle, however, the hole was “20 stories tall” (2002). It would appear that Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST, settled on somewhat of a compromise between these two views, telling Popular Mechanics that, “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out” (Popular Mechanics, March 2005).

In other words; had NIST reproduced photographs of the gash, it would be obvious to anyone that Captain Boyle was referring to this long, straight (and apparently superficial) gash instead of the hole. A "compromise" between the testimonies about the damage with Boyle's description attributed to the gash (and not to the hole), would leave NIST with a substantially smaller hole. This would make the 'fire and damage' theory even less credible then it is now.

I'm very curious if NIST will incorporate images of the gash in their final report, but i'm not counting on it. The testimony of Captain Boyle is just too convenient for them.

Show "A simple explanation" by Mark Roberts

Let's just call everything

Let's just call everything incompetence. NIST collected and is still sitting on thousands of videos and photographs but they did not watch them for three years? It does not take three years to fast forward through the broadcasts in search of footage of building 7. In fact i did it in a couple of days once i had the MPEG's. But perhaps they were just too busy studying the steel of WTC7 to be bothered with video evidence. Oh wait, that's right, NIST did not study ANY of the steel of WTC7.

Please watch my movie: WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11

Evidence destruction

"But perhaps they were just too busy studying the steel of WTC7 to be bothered with video evidence. Oh wait, that's right, NIST did not study ANY of the steel of WTC7."

Heh heh!

NIST is investigating one of the most cataclysmic building disasters in history, and all the steel debris was destroyed before they even started their investigations.

What this implies is succinctly expressed on wtc7.net:

"Being the only such building in history in which fire is blamed for total collapse, Building 7's remains warranted the most painstaking examination, documentation, and analysis. Building 7's rubble pile was at least as important as any archeological dig. It contained all the clues to one of the largest structural failures in history. Without understanding the cause of the collapse, all skyscrapers become suspect, with profound implications for the safety of occupants and for the ethics of sending emergency personnel into burning buildings to save people and fight fires.

There was no legitimate reason not to dismantle the rubble pile carefully, documenting the position of each piece of steel and moving it to a warehouse for further study. No one was thought buried in the pile, since, unlike the Twin Towers, Building 7 had been evacuated hours before the collapse. The pile was so well confined to the building's footprint that the adjacent streets could have been cleared without disturbing it."

As a colleague at work said, destroying evidence should start alarm bells in people's minds.

But of course, this doesn't bother the "debunkers" in the least.

Are you around ARIE ????

I think I have found another weird Jane Standley / BBC "strange moment"...

I have half of the footage in my last BBC file "V08591-32.mpeg" that ends at 8:23pm, but I need the first two minutes in HQ XVID (640x480) from the next segment.

Where her audio goes off this time as soon as she is asked about the WTC7 collapse, her link is working fine until then.

Stream is here : http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109112023-2104

If you could help it would be much appreciated, many thanks !!!

ARIE, thinking about it...

Direct cut of the MPEG would also be good, as it will match the input from the first part...

Thanks dude



Please pass this blog link onto him via email...

I've got everthing ready, all I need is the 2minutes worth of MPEG mentioned above...

Many thanks and best wishes...

All I need is the MPEG from the very start for two minutes...BBC Sept. 11, 2001 8:23 pm - 9:04 pm


2 questions...

On your new blog regarding the gash in WTC7, you state:

"There is a highly ingenious yet simple solution to the mystery of the vast clouds of smoke that billowed from the South side of WTC7 and from none of the other sides. What if it was deliberately engineered to cover the evidence of beam weapon damage - the long straight gash?"

1) please name one, just one, form of energy that could hypothetically be used as a DEW which can inflict damage to WTC7 that is consistent with observation, and the direction from which it might have been fired ---

2) please name one, just one, plausble alternative explanation as to what could have caused the gash in wtc7 besides a DEW

I look forward to you answers ----

All I ask is that you contribute anything positive

Andrew, they are simple questions. You have jumped to what apparently is an illogical conclusion. A gash exists in WTC7, therefore it is some ill-defined DEW that did it. The first question is, what kind of DEW is consistent with the damage. After all, if you think that DEWs did this, then you must think the damage is consistent with a DEW. What kind of energy was it (directed *energy* weapon)?

Again, you refuse to answer part 2. All I ask is that you contribute anything positive in seeking the truth of the matter without jumping to conclusions. This is not about 'setting a trap', it is about muddying the waters with unfounded notions.

You state that "I have no idea what caused the gash. If I knew, I would not be investigating the matter.", yet on your blog you suggest a DEW caused it. Does this mean you are going to erase this little overreaching assumptions from the blog?

And, yes, I know DEW's exist. The problem with everything you posted is that none of the proposed weapons are near enough power. The 'dam destroying' beam is probably an infrared beam that can locally heat the water in the concrete and cause it to fracture. Big deal. It is not magic. If the damn was made of solid steel, I know a DEW 'dam destroyer" would not even be on the drawing board. BTW, the thrust required to reflect a beam of photons required to vaporize the WTC towers would require over 1100 space shuttles of thrust at maximum burn just to maintain orbit.

BTW, other than the brief enuendo regarding DEWs, I actually like your blog.

"people" destroyed the WTC towers

I want to make a general point which addresses your response. Stating that a "Directed Energy Beam" destroyed the towers is inherently vacuous. It is synonymous with stating "people" destroyed the WTC towers. The question "what kind of energy" is like asking "which people". Without defining the type of energy, you are really supporting an empty notion. In my paper, I am forced to narrow down the options, so to speak. This is work that should have been done by proponents, but as Judy Wood stated in the interview, 'we haven't gotten that far yet." This is a preposterous answer since it is central in constructing a meaningful hypothesis.

Nonetheless, I narrow down the options based upon observation leaving only a certain definable spectral range of photons. All other known DEWs are ruled out, and you have not once linked to any DEW program which I have not already considered. All the links regarding DEWs which you link to do not invalidate the main points --- 1) there is a necessary spectral range of photons in order to match observation, and steel is over 99% reflective in this spectral range, 2) it takes an ungodly amount of energy to dissociate large amounts of steel 3) no significant amount of steel was found in the dust samples 4) no significant amount of debris could physically 'shoot up into the upper atmosphere' during collapse based upon Archimedes principle

All of these issues have failed to be addressed ---- by any proponent of DEWs (I do not pin all of this on you, personally). I hope you agree with this statement. Please acknowledge it in some form or another...

Yet, you continue to *want* to beleive that DEWs caused the WTC destruction. Fine. At this point, I am dumbfounded.

So, temporarily setting aside the major issues outlined above (please address or acknowledge them though), your faith has lead you to beleive that the gash in WTC7 may have been caused by a DEW. OK, I appreciate your candor in at least stating that you have a bias, or inclination, toward beleiving this. I really have no problem with this in relation to your blog, except for the following reason --- Why could you not at least list other plausible explanations? Why would you *only* write DEWs (this, IMO, is about the most ridiculous assertion you could possibly write)?


Dr. Wood boldly asserts that “The Towers did not collapse”. She states that the use of such terminology is “false, deceptive, and misleading.”[40] One might agree only if the word was even slightly misused. The definition of a ‘collapse’ is given by the American Heritage English Dictionary, Third Edition as:

Collapse (n.) 1. The act of falling down or inward, as from a loss of supports

2. An abrupt failure of function, strength, or health

The WTC towers fell down from a sudden loss of its supports suffering an abrupt failure of function and strength. In the common vernacular, no mechanism need be specified in order to correctly utilize the word. The collapse mechanism is precisely the topic currently being debated both within the 9/11 Truth movement and with NIST.

Perhaps the reason why Judy Wood argues that the building did not “collapse” is because she argues that debris was sent into the ‘upper atmosphere’ during collapse. If the “anti-collapse” hypothesis is proven false (which is easily shown), then it is necessarily proven true that the WTC towers did indeed collapse.


“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

What the... you mean the Towers are still standing?

He collapsed. His hopes collapsed. Your argument collapses upon the false use of logic. In other words you are committing a straw-man.

The word collapse does not include the collapse mechanism. How they collapsed is what we are debating. The word collapse is not up for debate. The material from the building FELL to the ground.

I agree that the word "collapse" should not be used to give the false impression that structural damage was the collapse mechanism, but there are times when this word is unavoidable. This is why the word "collapse" should always be noted with the collapse mechanism.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

lost yet again.

The point, it seems, has been lost yet again.

The point is that no matter what mechanism brought down the towers, the term 'collapse' may be applied, especially in light of the fact that >50% of the tower fell on it's footprint.

mythical world of 'space beam' incantations-R-us

What are you talking about? Strange words coming from the mythical world of 'space beam' incantations-R-us.....

6 stories of debris/11.5% volumetric compression (there were probably more like 7 -- 6 levels but one of the levels was 2 stories tall --- plus debris on the surface of the footprint~ 9 stories for the North Tower)
~ 52 stories ~ 50% the volume of the towers.

No need to reference NIST or Hoffmann. Some people actually have original thoughts, Andrew.

Does this add to your guy's discussion?

I have an idea of what cause the large demo squibs. See Here: http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/3/c/f/2/highres_1395602.jpe...

I'm just a layman, so I could be wrong.

I have no idea

I have no idea if the squibs correlate with specific sections of the hat trusses. Did you carefully cross reference the precise levels where the squibs ocurr with the blueprints of the towers? It is interesting ----

I don't think this theory will do much for the 'space beam' incantations which will be chanted tonight at Andrew's house over a big vat of newt's eye witches' brew ----
(Joke, not ad hominem)

I have not thoroughly cross referenced yet...

I just had this epiphany last Friday night while looking into an explanation for the observed "squibs". My layman mind told me that if these "squibs" are indeed demolition explosions, then there should be some robust structure in these locations that needed to be demolished to aid in the collapse. I have confirmed that at least SOME of these squibs were located on those bands of floors that did not have any lights on them, and I could be wrong, but I believe this is where the hat trusses were located. I am a married man who's wife is not into 9/11 truth, so the time I am allowed to spend on this is limited. I need other people with more skill and expertise to help with this. I e-mailed it to STJ911 and YT is mailing it to Richard Grove.

When I initially had this thought, it was like a EUREKA moment. It sounded and felt right.

I just noticed the link I provided was no good...

Here is the good one. http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/3/c/f/2/highres_1395602.jpeg

I have confirmed that there are squibs that coincide with the hat truss corner connections. What I mean is, the 2 points where the hat truss connects to the outer perimeter. There are clips, not shown in my diagram, that show large squibs shooting out symotaniously on each side of the corner of the building, right where the hat truss would connect to the outer columns. It is hard to explain without showing it to you. I would like someone to help me figure out where the hat trusses were located.

Hat truss...

I thought the hat truss was only at the top of the towers.... Are you sure they were present on the mechanical levels?

arguments supporting DEW seem to be vaporizing

I would venture a plausible guess to the gash in WTC7 is from a localized partial gravity collapse. I have not analyzed this problem and am not sure exactly where the long gash is located with respect to the building schematics associated with WTC7. A cross check should be performed to see if columnar supports could be taken out which may cause a localized collapse as seen. Since I have not done this, I would say this is pure speculation. However, a plausible case in point has been posted above: http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/5433/ronanpointapartmentbuilun5.gif
That building was not hit by a DEW --- it happened in 1968. It suffered some kind of gravity driven collapse. There are a variety of mechanisms which might achieve this, but all are purely speculative ----

You are correct. We have discussed this. You can certainly correct me if I am wrong, but you previously expressed your position by stating that you do not ‘trust’ the USGS study, and you believe that Lioy may be suspiciously hiding information regarding Fe content of dust samples. However, I have some new info you may find useful. John K. McGee et al. (“Chemical Analysis of World Trade Center Fine Particulate Matter for Use in Toxicologic Assessment”, June 2003, Environmental Health Perspective) report that “ the relative weight-percent ratios of Al, Mg, and Fe are in the range of those found in Portland cement, a major component of concrete.” This is for the PM2.5 fraction. They also present a table (table 3) with relative amounts of Fe listed. In the discussion section of the paper, McGee et al state “Levels of elements that could be attributed to metal wiring (Cu), plumbing (Fe, Cu, Pb), structural steel (Fe, Mn), and communication and computer equipment (Cu, Fe, Zn, others) are also low. This may be attributed to the relatively small proportion of metal-containing building contents compared with the building itself, or perhaps these materials resisted crumbling and pulverization into the PM2.5 fraction.” Basically, no significant levels of Fe in the fine dust (<2.5um) above that found in concrete.


The definition of a ‘collapse’ is given by the American Heritage English Dictionary, Third Edition as:
Collapse (n.)
1. The act of falling down or inward, as from a loss of supports
2. An abrupt failure of function, strength, or health

The WTC towers fell down from a sudden loss of its supports suffering an abrupt failure of function and strength. In the common vernacular, no mechanism need be specified in order to correctly utilize the word. The collapse mechanism is precisely the topic currently being debated both within the 9/11 Truth movement and with NIST.

I don’t see the problem with using the word ‘collapse’. If you think this is a problem with semantics, I don’t see how I am misusing the term based upon the dictionary definition. BTW, I would not use PM as a reference (ha!).

You have side-stepped this last point --- the concept of buoyancy dictates that not a significant amount of the weight of the towers can travel upwards due to the immense weight of the towers. That is expressed as Archimedes principle. Basically, the only way the debris generated from the towers can hypothetically travel upwards is from the “hot air + dust” weighing less than the surrounding air. That means that the maximum weight of dust that can be lifted ‘into the upper atmosphere’ is the difference in weight between hot air generated from the towers (through whatever mechanism --- doesn’t matter) and the surrounding air.

The density of air as a function of temperature can be found here:

From the table, you see that density changes by .2 kg/m^3 when the air temperature increases from 20C to 80C. We know that the air could not have gotten much hotter than this since many people survived the dust/debris cloud without severe burns. If we take 5 times the volume of the tower (~1.4x10^6 m^3) and multiply it by the change in density, we obtain the maximum weight of dust that the air can lift: 5 x 1.4 x 10^6 x .2 = 1.4x10^6 kg ~ 1500 tons. The tower weighed 240,000 tons (http://journalof911studies.com/letters/wtc_mass_and_energy.pdf), so the air could only support approximately 1500/240,000 = .6% of the weight of the building during collapse. Even if we consider that the temperature rose to 300C (*way* above anything remotely possible), the percentage of the towers which could be supported during collapse is <2%.

It is impossible the building shot up ‘into the upper atmosphere’ during collapse. More than 99% of the debris from the towers had to hit the ground first based upon Archimedes principle which, BTW, was scribbed in 250BC. There is redundant data stating that no significant amount of steel was found in the dust. The arguments supporting DEW seem to be vaporizing, no?

Hmmm, this must be important to someone....

Mark was the first poster after thie blog was quite for 8 odd hours. Comment Mark?

Anyone else notice how much time Brainster, JamesB and--to a lesser extent--Mark, are spending here this week? One thread is almost to 200 just with JamesB help alone. Anyone want to bet that this lot posted anonymously before anonymous posts were banned?

What are the odds....

As to your "comment"

Is that they didn't have the footage when they issued their interim report in 2004. They have gathered a great deal of material since then, including photographic evidence.

Who is "they", and from where would they have gathered this material? And why the fuck would they need a free lance "tour guide" to keep them updated on their images?

(I would assume t"hey' was NIST, but with Mark you never can be sure)

BTW--what company do you work for or are you freelance?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

see below

the bedunkers seem to be trying to ensure that people see this story about the fake "gash" and also to plant the idea that NIST had no idea because they didn't have the footage. ok i'm sounding the big red alert with feckin bells disinfo call. BIG time. this is a ploy to explain away building 7 with bogus evidence. think about it--none of this makes sense. where is there any evidence other than late to be revealed video and photographic "proof" for this "gash"? there was none. for five years not a peep about any gash, not a pic or a video or anything. then recently a tv archive is made available (by who exactly? some random tv archive website. huh??) and these videos are conveniently discovered. both the bbc foreknowledge and the black band videos. No way. RED ALERT! RED ALERT!! FECKIN BELLS!!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Good work, arie!

"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

Did NIST release their Computer models?


Some one should post this asap.



Help me shout 9/11 articles on:




Nice window !!

Just a little detail :

abc news :

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us


Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Good eye, mate!

Curiouser and curiouser...

Great spot arie !!!

I would guess that picture was taken from a similar elevation as the BBC pic.

It looks as though it was taken much earlier in the day (what time was the segment / sanpshot from please).

It also looks as though the ABC window was further to the right of the BBC one... in the same building though...

Maybe ABC cut the feed.... "ooops sorry, I unplugged ya satellite, total accident though" !!!!

Thanks for your great analysis of the internet archive and all the time you have spent on it...

Everyone here owes ya a nice cold beer !!!

Best wishes

the abc-screenshot is from

the abc-screenshot is from the last part of the first video.
so, both abc and bbc used that location .. and it IS a rather
good spot.
who else joined the party ?

This photo too shows the

This photo too shows the gash

Please watch my movie: WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11

Is it me?

Where is that freaking 10 story hole in the center of building 7 that they keep boosting about?

I mean we almost have a full view of the top 25 stories of Building 7 and there seems to be NO HOLE whatsoever? Apart from that gash.

P.S. That footage is pure gold.



Help me shout 9/11 articles on:


It would help to get clarification from Craig Bartmer...

about his statements regarding Building 7 damage...

Former NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer:
"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."

Excerpt taken from "SPEAKING OUT: An interview with Craig Bartmer"

"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

the more i look at this

the more suspicious I get. take a step back... we know 7 is their achilles heel. we know they are now once again passing on their promised deadline for the release of the report on building 7. we know they would LOVE to be able to come out with something that explains it away.

the more i look at this gash video, the more i think it's a fake. that gash, which is not so much a gash as it is a strange dark band that seems to fade in and out of the smoke, seems too much like one of those first down lines in a footbal broadcast. in fact, the bbc video could well have also ben faked with the insertion of an image of building 7.

why the deception? again--think achilles heel. think totally late and totally impossible report to explain what happened. think silverstein trying to explain the pull it comment. why did these videos seemingly appear out of nowhere just as the deadline for the new building 7 report approached?

I recommend mucho skepticism on this line of inquiry. it all seems a little too.......... something, ya know?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


I'm inclined to suspect it's fake, too

Though I don't see how it helps the official story. Buildings don't collapse from from a gash like that. They certainly don't collapse in a way indistiguishable from CD. And doesn't this contradict what Davin said to Goyette about seeing pictures where 25% of the lower floors were scooped out?

Dancing they are--and they'll dance --and sing---till they burn.

" All these melodies, they go on too long.
Then that energy starts to come on way too strong.
All those hearts lay open— that must sting.
Plus some customers just start combusting.
That’s the penalty when life is but a song." ~Sweet

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

no shit sherlock! well keep digging watson!

dude, aren't you one of those video fakery people? now I KNOW to be skeptical, thanks!

for those who need a refresher, here's ALW's lovely ballad of 911blogegr from back in the day when no one wanted to have anymore of his and others' video fakery, no planes, and space beam stuff: http://www.911blogger.com/node/4843

Now it's this "gash" OK... next!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Even if there was a big straight gash down the middle

of the south side, that is not where the building failed first anyway.

According to our friends at NIST, WTC 7 probably failed around the 5th floor. It is between the 5th and 7th floor where the trusses were that held up the building over the ConEd substation. Causing those trusses to fail first was the only way for the building to fall the way it did.


my point is that

Knowing they are under the gun to come up with SOMEthing that even SOUNDS remotely plausible, they may have resorted to releasing this kind of material so as to be able to introduce heretofore nonexistent variables into their analysis. Just saying be aware of this possibility. The black band looks inserted to me.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


How do we know

these images haven't been manipulated?

The south side of WTC 7 was almost like a mirror. It was very reflective. With the light and smoke, plus the poor quality of the image, what is there doesn't look real. The edges are too even.


Seems WTC 7 always had a 'gash'


Right down the middle of the building. Funny what light and shadows can do to a glass wall.