AE911Truth's Written Submission to NIST's WTC 7 Update Teleconference

NIST conducted a WTC 7 update teleconference meeting on 12/18/07. Public comments were invited and Richard Gage, on behalf of AE911Truth, provided a stinging 5 minute verbal comment. This week our written submission was emailed to NIST and we received confirmation that it is a part of the official record along with the documented meeting. Below is that e-mail response and links to the attached documents, with an excerpt.

To: stephen.cauffman [at]
Cc: info [at]; [AE911Truth Team]; ncstac [at]; john.gross [at]; shyam.sunder [at]
Subject: NIST WTC7 Update Mtg - AE911Truth written submission

Mr. Stephen Cauffman / Advisory Committee - National Institute for Standards and Technology,

Thank you for inviting us to submit the written notes from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth public address to the 12/18/07 NIST WTC7 Update Telecom Meeting.

I have attached 2 very important appendices to my notes: "Appendix C" from the 5/2002 FEMA BPAT report, and the May 2007 "Revisiting 9/11: Applying the Scientific Method" by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.. We appreciate the opportunity to enter this vital information into the official record of the 12/18/07 telecom meeting and we encourage each member of NIST and the Advisory Committee to carefully review the attached documents with a focused conscience. Be very aware that this is not just a building collapse investigation. Questions of integrity and believability are at the core. The credibility of NIST must be preserved. The future of our very country is at stake. The attached science based forensic evidence for the controlled demolition of WTC7 is indicative of far more serious and disturbing problems than those raised merely by the collapse of a building. On behalf of the American people, the 230 architects & engineers of demand complete and total accountability on the part of NIST. As an Advisory Committee it is not too late to consider the overwhelming evidence, come clean, and tell the truth. And as individuals it is not too late for you to become a whistleblower and a hero.

We are here to support and encourage you in your quest for clarity, veracity and accuracy.


Richard Gage, AIA

    JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf (2MB)
    AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf (2MB)

Undisputed Facts Point to the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

Response to NIST's Invitation for Written Comments

Expanding on and documenting spoken remarks presented on December 18 conference call with the NCST Advisory Committee

Emailed to NIST on December 31, 2007

Richard Gage, AIA

I'm Richard Gage, AIA, a licensed architect of 20 years. I represent Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, [1] a fast-growing body of more than 230 architects and engineers dedicated solely to bringing out the truth about all three high-rise building collapses on 9/11. We believe that we have answers to your questions about the puzzling collapse of World Trade Center 7.

In more than 100 steel-framed, high-rise fires (most of them very hot, very large and very long-lasting), not one has collapsed, ever. So it behooves all of us, as your own former chief of NIST's Fire Science Division, Dr. James Quintiere, said, "to look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of these collapses." [2]

Let's start with temperatures -- 1,340 (deg) F. temperatures, recorded in thermal images of the surface of the World Trade Center rubble pile a week after 9/11 by NASA's AVIRIS equipment on USGS overflights. [3] Such temperatures cannot be achieved by oxygen-starved hydrocarbon fires. Such fires burn at only 600 to 800 (deg) F. [4] Remember, there was no fire on the top of the pile. The source of this incredible heat was therefore below the surface of the rubble, where it must have been far hotter than 1,340 degrees.

Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who was hired for the Building 7 cleanup, said that "molten steel was found at 7 WTC." [5] Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center structural engineer, stated that on October 5, "21 days after the attacks, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." [6] Fire department personnel, recorded on video, reported seeing "molten steel running down the channel rails... like you're in a foundry -- like lava from a volcano." [7] Joe O'Toole, a Bronx firefighter, saw a crane lifting a steel beam vertically from deep within a pile. He said "it was dripping from the molten steel." [8] Bart Voorsanger, an architect hired to save "relics from the rubble," stated about the multi-ton "meteorite" that it was a "fused element of molten steel and concrete." [9]

The knowledge that this evidence even exists was denied by one of your top engineers, John Gross, in his.....

Read More... (full PDF document with references) Needs Your Help
Become A Sustaining Member!
January Is Our Pledge Drive Month

No squibs

A very good written comment. The only reservation I have is with the mention of "mistimed explosions" or "squibs". The dark "blobs" near the top corner of the building are quite unclear in the videos I've seen, even in the higher-resolution versions.

In fact, I just watched numerous times the video in which the alleged squibs are. Even before the "collapse" starts, two dark, blobby objects can be seen stationary near the top corner, the lower of the two protruding somewhat from the building wall. When the building starts to descend, more dark objects appear protruding from the wall, with the impression that they are ascending the wall. I'll try to get a hi-quality screenshot of them. I don't think they are squibs.

"Such temperatures cannot be achieved by oxygen-starved hydrocarbon fires. Such fires burn at only 600 to 800˚ F."

If this is true, doesn't it mean that the steel supports should not even have dramatically weakened? Based on what I've read, construction steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1200 F (or 650 C).


Here's the highest resolution footage available of the squibs. (from the naudet DVD):

IMO squibs are unnecessary to prove CD.... that said, notice the piece of debris that is ejected... the building falls faster than it due to the objects air resistance.

PS. the "pull it down larry" squibs are fake. I checked it every which way and I have the footage to do so.

Become a sustaining member! Richard is running a real operation and he needs our help as this heats up.

Stationary blobs corresponding to corner damage

Thanks for the link. Took a while to download...

That video, too, shows that the initial "squibs" are first stationary. They start "climbing" upwards right after the building's facade begins to fall.

For one thing, an explosion cannot be stationary.

Then, the "climbing"/multiplying blobs also seem to become stationary, as if clinging to the corner.

Finally, the initial blobs/"squibs" correspond to the location of debris damage in another picture of the same corner, as I show here:

As regards the piece of debris ejected, that takes place after the "ribbon of blobs" has largely come to a standstill. To me it seems to be ejected not to the side, but in a direction opposite to the camera. Be that as it may, other flying pieces of debris can be seen as well.

Finally, and to make it absolutely clear for some, I'm also supporting AE911Truth, and my WTC 7 article is linked from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site.


While I agree with you that these "blobs" are not squibs and also see the piece of debris detach from the vicinity of one of these "blobs", which appears to me to be some kind of exterior building panel, I do really understand your point about the "blobs" being stationary. I mean, squibs could be stationary too.

On the otherhand, your "mapping exercise" seems to indicate that these "blobs" result from the distortion, detachment or destruction of the semi-reflective exterior building panels. This idea would be consistent with the idea that the piece of debris originating from the "blob" is also such a panel.

Again, as I posted below, there are many squibs on the front face of the building which are clearly apparent, specifically in a column-like array on the right side (of the front face). We can tell these are squibs because they leave a distinct plume of dust that becomes visible as the building falls.

By "stationary" I meant...

... not moving in *any* direction - including (forcefully shooting) outwards, as the squibs in the Twin Towers do.

"Squibs" in closer examination

As I don't know if or how it is possible to add pictures to comments, I created a blog about the alleged "squibs" in WTC 7:

Please view and comment.

"Downvote brigade" at work again?

Just downvoting, no comments...

What on earth is this? Is it not permissible to question whether we really see mistimed explosions near the top corner of WTC 7?

You need a stronger argument to get voted up.

I voted you down because Richard Gage's 5 minute presentation is a very strong argument based on credible facts. It made a lot of sense to me. On the other hand, your comment ,referring to dark blobs that may or may not be evidence of demolition squibs, seeks to undermine his solid argument with vague speculation. I will vote you up if you can come up with an argument as strong as that of Mr. Gage that points out real flaws in his theory.
I won't speculate why others voted you down.

It made a lot of sense to me too

Richard's presentation, I mean. And I did indicate that at the beginning of my first post by describing it as "very good".

I'm not trying to undermine Richard's solid argument with vague speculation, as you imply. (Let it be noted, for the record, that I have personally corresponded with Richard quite a number of times.) By contrast, I think saying that the dark objects are definite evidence of demolition squibs is speculation. As you say yourself, they "may *or may not* be evidence of demolition squibs". I don't think they are, and I have presented evidence supporting this view on two blog pages now.

EDIT: This is also connected with the idea that one should always concentrate on the strongest evidence. For example, if we make a lot of noise about the alleged squibs and they are shown to be something else than demolition squibs, the "debunkers" have a field day.

Again, the initial, stationary "blobs" correspond to the locations of corner damage in another picture. That plus the fact that the blobs are stationary (before the building begins to fall) show that they are not demolition squibs. Connect this with the fact that corners "live" in the somewhat unclear video -- either as a result of video compression or some other artefact -- and I think there are no grounds for proclaiming the blobs as evidence of controlled demolition.

I think the very large puff of *white smoke* being ejected from (within?) the top of the building in the very same video is a stronger candidate for evidence of controlled demolition.

Mapping of the "squibs" with picture of corner damage

The above comparison to me strongly suggests that what may appear as squibs in WTC 7's corner are largely the damaged areas shown in some other photographs.

Also, before the building begins to fall, some dark objects can be seen stationary on the wall. That, of course, means that they are not explosions of any kind.

Then, when the wall begins to descend, a couple of additional, and *similar*, "blobs" appear.

I think we may also be seeing video artefacts here (related to compression, etc). It is worth noting that the video is a bit unclear throughout, and the video image "lives" in other areas as well (corners appear wobbly etc).

you are spamming this great post

i think your replies should be deleted

Now *that* was constructive...

It seems that there is a concerted effort to stifle discussion about the alleged squibs in WTC 7. I wonder why...

I have presented somewhat detailed arguments - here and in a more rudimentary form elsewhere - for why I don't think it is a good idea to use the "squibs" as an argument for the obvious controlled demolition of WTC 7.

This is, for those who didn't know, not the first time I discuss WTC 7. On my WTC 7 page I present what *I* consider the strong arguments:

If you think my replies to my critics should be deleted, why don't you ask some admin to do that?

i am going to become a sustaining member of ae911truth!

i think everyone should

everyone can afford to do so ----- (except maybe a handful)


I am a supporting member of ae911truth.

Richard's presentation in the NIST teleconference was powerful and compelling.

The 'squibs' are the one flaw in the presentation.

If you look at them frame by frame, they look like the blob tried to escape and got stuck.

I recommend that Richard drop them from future presentations because they just give 'debunkers' something to rail about.

NIST has finally acknowledged that there were no diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
Inherent in their 12-18-07 report is an acknowledgment that the debris damage did not have a significant effect on the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC7.
That leaves office fires heating columns weighing over 4 tons per floor to 1,000° F.
I have not been able to find data on how hot and how long office fires burn.
Such data would be the final nail in the coffin of the NIST hypothesis.

If anyone knows of this data, PLEASE POST here.


I believe the WTC7 squibs will be removed from the next presentation. Thanks!

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.

I'm glad those squibs are being seriously questioned.

I've always been uneasy about them.


NIST still includes debris damage as a possible contributing factor.

Frontal Squibs versus Back Corner "Blobs"

I believe that we can tell that there are many squibs on the right side of the front face in the video above, because a clearly distinct plume of smoke (or dust) from these anomalies becomes visible after the building drops below their original height.

However, the same can not be said of the putative "squibs" that Vesa is referencing (the "blobs" on the back right corner). They do not appear to emit smoke (or dust). Yet on very careful inspection of the video linked above, one can see that some kind of panel comes off the building at one of the back right corner "blobs".

Therefore, I agree with Vesa that these "blobs" are not squibs per se. But they must be something related to demolitions going off, perhaps bulges in the building exterior due squib-like forces that fail to break through to the outside of the building.

A good distinction

Yes, plumes of smoke can be clearly seen being ejected from the front, as also pointed out by Hoffman. I think he uses the term "streamers of dust".

I was referring to the blobs on the right corner, and I am under the impression Richard was referring to them too. They are often cited as evidence of demolition charges going off.

The fact that some blobs appear in the corner just before it starts to go down, combined with the fact that debris damage in another picture taken well before the collapse corresponds locationally to these blobs, to me suggests that the blobs in the collapse video are corner damage caused by debris from tower 1:

The curvy shape of the initial blob seems to be shared by the damaged part in the other picture.

Richard Gage

Yes, Richard Gage certainly has referred to these "blobs" as squibs in talks, specifically the one at the University of Manitoba (Blueprint For Truth).

However, his recent NIST letter merely states this: "There was also the appearance of mistimed explosions
(squibs?) at the upper seven floors on the network video recordings of the collapse."

I sent Richard email calling this issue to his attention, perhaps you should too.


Just an FYI for anyone who doesn't know, Vesa has been posting at 911blogger for nearly as long as anyone. Please don't disregard Vesa's comments as the work of a troll because you don't agree with them. I suspect that the negative votes are being dropped on Vesa in defense of Gage and, which is understandable.

But Vesa is good folks. ;)

Thank you again Vesa for another excellent analysis

Vesa has been quite an ally, along with many others, keeping me straight along the way. (By the way - the debunkers have also been very helpful in this regard and we should take the opportunity to thank them for pointing out errors here and there).

We will strike the controversial WTC7 squibs (in the upper right corner) from the online PPT and upcoming DVD update. I agree with the analysis - particularly the impossible "stationary explosions". ((Damn - I thought these were the real deal!)). I think what's happening is that the windows break - and right in time with the shockwave traveling up the front face! And the smoke inside is under pressure and "poofs out" - making them appear like explosions. The 2 stationary "poofs" would be due to the already damaged windows/panels which emerged prior to the collapse - although I can't understand why the smoke wouldn't be "billowing" up and out of the damaged opening more than it is.

Thanks again Vesa for your keen mind and friendship. Sorry you took heat on this blog.

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect

I knew you'd all come around

I was hitting you up vesa, I knew you'd all come around and figure this out, I have faith in 911blogger one of the best sites outhere

Reconciliatorily about the frontal streamers :)

Thank you guys (and especially Reprehensor and Richard for so strongly defending poor me). :) Perhaps my typically Finnish directly-to-the-point-bluntness had something to do with this. (Cultural differences can be intriguing. For example, when working in intercultural settings, we Finns have to try to keep in mind that in some cultures it is actually possible to lose face.) Anyway, as I like to say, we're all just human beings. :)

A final comment about the topic under discussion (I emailed this to Richard): The *frontal* streamers of dust/smoke in the video in question may be quite important, even if they might not be a smoking gun (pun attempted): First, I don't think there were any fires on those floors (this is worth ascertaining) and second, the entire top portion of the building was dropping as a monolithic whole at that point. Therefore, "pancaking" as an explanation for the streamers seems to be out of the question. Does that leave other possible explanations than some kind of charges going off?

In this fairly high-res video, the streamers are even clearer, please have a look:

I recall one debunker saying that they are broken glass, but to me they look like dust/smoke.

Good work.

I'm glad to see you vindicated Vesa. I'm not too big to admit I misjudged your intentions. I agree with jmd3100 below. This is one of the best 911 Truth related sites because of constructive and civil debate.

Say it like it is


Now that we've put the squib issue to rest,

I would like to thank you for your excellent follow up letter that has become part of the official public record.

You played the aces, stated the case clearly and concisely with references.

Again, you pulled no punches.

The facts can no longer be ignored.

Do you think very polite but firm emails of encouragement to the members of the NIST board would be helpful?

ETA: You're right about debunkers. They are very helpful in finding any flaws in the case for CD.
Debating with them and weeding out the weak evidence will leave us with only the undebunkable aces to present when this breaks into MSM.