NY Times quotes Richard Gage on WTC7 "collapse"


August 22, 2008
Report Says Fire, Not Explosion, Felled 7 W.T.C.

GAITHERSBURG, Md. — Fires in the 47-story office tower at the edge of the World Trade Center site undermined floor beams and critical structural columns, federal investigators concluded Thursday, as they attempted to curb still-rampant speculation that explosives or fuel fires were responsible for the building’s collapse of Sept. 11, 2001.

The long-delayed report by engineers here at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in suburban Washington is intended to solve one of still lingering central questions about the 2001 attacks: Why did 7 World Trade Center fall, if it was not hit by an airplane.

“Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail,” said Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator. “Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oils played a role in the collapse that brought the building down.”

No one died when 7 World Trade Center fell, nearly seven hours after the twin towers came down. But the collapse of the adjacent tower — once home to branch offices of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service and to the Giuliani administration’s emergency operations center — is cited in hundreds of books and Internet sites as perhaps the most compelling evidence that an insider secretly planted explosives, intentionally destroying the tower.

It is the first skyscraper in modern times to collapse primarily as a result of a fire.

Mainstream engineers and government officials have rejected the speculation as ridiculous. But national polls have shown that perhaps as many as 1 in 7 Americans believe that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was an inside job.

The investigators determined that debris from the falling twin towers ignited fires on at least 10 floors at 7 World Trade Center, which was about 400 feet north of where the city’s two tallest buildings once stood. The blazes burned out of control for six hours, as the city fire department, devastated by the collapse of the twin towers, abandoned its efforts to extinguish the fire, and the sprinkler system was incapacitated.

The heat from these fires, the investigators said, caused the beams on the lower floors of the east side of the tower to expand, ultimately causing a girder on the 13th floor to disconnect from a critical interior column that supported the building’s long floor spans. Once the 13th floor gave way, a cascade of floor failures started down to the fifth floor, leading to the overall collapse of the tower.

Skeptics have questioned if explosives were planted at 7 World Trade Center, as well as the twin towers and the Pentagon, as the Bush administration was seeking a justification to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. What started as a small number of such conspiracy theorists has only ballooned into a movement of sorts, largely fed by Internet sites that promote the theories.

“Seven World Trade Center is one of the key points of evidence, one of the smoking guns,” said Richard Gage, a California architect who leader a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. “There have been much hotter, longer lasting and larger fires in skyscrapers that have not fallen down.”

The investigators said that if the city water main had not been broken during the collapse of the twin towers, the sprinkler system would likely have put out the fires at 7 World Trade Center, and the building would not have fallen.

The engineers also examined whether diesel fuel tanks in the building — to power the Giuliani administration’s emergency operations center and other government offices — might have been a fuel source that caused the collapse. The investigators determined, based in part on computer models and videos of smoke coming from the tower, that the heat generated from any fuel-fed fires would not have been enough to cause the collapse.

Dr. Sunder said the investigation pointed to how expansion that can occur in steel as it heats up in a fire needs to be considered to prevent skyscraper collapses.

“Our take-home message today is the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery,” Dr. Sunder said. “It did not collapse from explosives or fuel oil fires.”

A new, substantially different, 52-story 7 World Trade Center opened in 2006.

I'm curious...

In the other buildings that have sustained long fires, have any of them not had their sprinkler systems working, or not had any at all?

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

The Al-Nasr skyscraper fire in 2005

I'm pretty sure this reportedly poorly constructed and still unfinished skyscraper didn't have working sprinklers:


Did it collapse, even partially? No.

Richard Gage in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"

Richard Gage in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (3 minutes)

I started to try to organize

I started to try to organize some of the links to information and stories so far here as a reference.

There is less than a month to finalize public responses. The report seems longer than it is -- the executive summary doesn't even begin until after page 30. it's clear they want people to turn away before they get too far into it.

Richard Gage - Additional Media

I am done !

If Americans are this stupid we deserve what ever comes. I am sorry to all truthers. It was a noble effort.
Be ready......the worst is yet to come.

Shane Geiger, Alex Jones, Jason Bermas


7:33 1.3MB


You Are Joking!

A quick skim of the report and we get the same modus operandi as the previous garbage this NIST team produced for WTC1&2:
1) ...and then global collapse occurred (one sentence) as if when one floor goes the entire building just gives up in a free-fall collapse.
2) the investigation of the explosions centers around ONE explosion blowing column 79 out (which presumably backs their theory of the trigger for global collapse). Because there was no glass blown out by one large explosion on column 79 they have debunked “explosive(s) in the building”.
I cannot believe that anyone will believe this report!

Our political system will not radically change for the better save some catalysing event, such as exposing 911 as an inside job

Shane Geiger

If I hadn't seen this with my own eyes . . . . Shane Geiger asks a question at the press conference and the lights are turned off. When the lights come back on, the lady with the microphone keeps moving it away from Shane as he speaks so that it is hard to understand what he is saying.

I love how official story

I love how official story enthusiasts immediately latch on to each and every theory that the government releases, even before it has been thoroughly tested independently. Debunkers have already been caught previously supporting the now defunct pancake theory for explaining the collapse of the twin towers which the government once supported but then later abandoned. 9/11 truthers were called conspiracy theorists by debunkers for challenging this theory until of course they were eventually vindicated. NIST in fact has changed their minds many times over the years as their claims have repeatedly failed to hold up to scrutiny. You see, debunkers don’t care about the actual details or feasibility of such theories so long as they come directly from the government. Yet it has been the government itself which has gotten it wrong time and time again. The brainwashed debunkers have been trained to look beyond this. Their deeply ingrained desire to believe all that they are told by big brother outstrips any need to be objective and analyze alternative explanations. They’ll believe any lie, so long as it happens to be the newest lie and it's presented in a convincing official package. It's the same rationale that has allowed so many Americans to blindly believe the lies about WMDs. As you can probably tell, many naive debunkers have not hesitated for a second to hop on to this latest bandwagon of manipulation.


Whatever happened to the “giant scoop mark” on the south side of building seven that was supposed to have been the primary cause of the collapse? Yet another abandoned theory once readily accepted as reality by debunkers?

"...But the structural damage from the falling debris was not significant enough to threaten the tower’s stability, Dr. Sunder said..."

I was called a conspiracy theorist by many for questioning the debris theory and now I have been vindicated, at least according to this recent study for what it's worth.

We were also initially told that the collapse was caused by fires resulting from the building's diesel tanks. The debunkers gladly accepted that explanation as well at the time. Too bad that theory once accepted as gospel has been rescinded as well.

"...A separate, preliminary report issued in 2002 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency questioned whether diesel fuel tanks installed in the tower to supply backup generators — including one that powered the Giuliani administration’s emergency “bunker” — might have been to blame.
But S. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, based here in the suburbs of Washington, also rejected that theory on Thursday, even as he acknowledged that the collapse had been something of a puzzle.
“Our take-home message today is the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery,” Dr. Sunder said at a news conference at the institute’s headquarters. “It did not collapse from explosives or fuel oil fires...”

I was called a conspiracy theorist by many for questioning the diesel theory and now I have been vindicated, at least according to this recent study for what it's worth.

I guess the next logical question is, how long before this latest theory is abandoned too? The debunkers will just have to sit tight and hope with their fingers crossed that this one isn't eventually discarded along with the rest. No doubt I will once again be called a conspiracy theorist for questioning this latest theory. Unfortunately for the critics though, my track record so far has been much better than theirs.

Other questions:

Will NIST address questions involving the existence of molten steel in the basement as described by numerous eyewitnesses?

Will NIST interview the numerous eyewitness and first responders who saw and heard explosions who inevitably will not accept this most recent explanation?

Will NIST explain why buildings 5 and 6 didn't also fall as a result of burning office supplies and furnishings seeing as how they suffered much more damage and were completely gutted?

Will NIST address the issue of free-fall speed?

These and many other questions soon to follow will most certainly be ignored just as they've always been because apparently the easy answers just don't exist? One thing is for sure, we can't expect the debunkers to look any deeper in to this. If the government says so, it must be true because politicians and imperialist war mongers never lie. That's the damaged belief system that allows psychos to get away with murder.

You’re considered a wacky conspiracy theorist when you point any of this out. It’s much easier for debunkers to avoid meaningful debate and attack you personally rather than having to admit that they have been duped once again. They must protect their fragile egos. With so much propaganda being disseminated, it's clearly difficult for the debunkers to keep track of which theory they're supposed to believe and which to ignore at any given time. Who would've thought that being mislead would require so much effort?

Another reporter appeared to

Another reporter appeared to temporarily stump Sunder with a very basic but perfect question. Throughout the presentation Sunder spoke about building seven as if it were particularly susceptible to collapse by even moderate fires because of the design. However Sunder would later go on to explain that it would require a very large amount of explosives to bring it down by demolition.

The great question was, why if the buildings were so vulnerable to collapse due to regular fires alone, wouldn’t they also be equally vulnerable to failure with just a small number of explosives? Sunder’s initial response was, “Can you repeat the question?” seemingly trying to buy himself more time. He then proceeded to stumble through some convoluted explanation for why only fire could be responsible. The questioner then asked about a combination of both fire and explosives to which Sunder seemed to deflect and refer to the NIST paper without elaborating further. Sunder seemed caught off guard and uncomfortable.

That is very funny. Nice catch.

That is very funny. Nice catch.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need. "

Looks like I need to write another top 10 list.

Top 10 reasons why the NIST report is absurd (their report on the twin towers)

9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”

The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Sprinkler systems are not for the protection

of a building's contents but for the protection of a building's structure..? hmmm

Other issues with the NIST

Other issues with the NIST presentation.

NIST had to rely on a term called “thermal expansion” to describe a phenomenon that even they admit has no precedent. Why are there no previous examples of this throughout the many years of building fires and subsequent documentation?

The report appeared to be based entirely on computer modeling. As Kevin Ryan once explained, NIST has had a long history of tweaking parameters and to unrealistic levels on computer simulations in order to achieve their desired results.

I noticed that during the presentation with both the simulation and actual footage, NIST did not depict the full collapse of building seven.

Sunder claimed that no building is designed to withstand the impact of a plane. This is not true.


"...Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil...."

Sunder appeared to contradict himself on whether or not they had actually tested the controlled demolition theory. At one point he claimed that they began this scientific venture with no pre-conceived notions and considered all possibilities including explosives equally. He later claimed that they did not pursue the demolition theory because as a team, they did not deem it to be a highly probable theory. So which is it? I’m leaning toward they ignored it like they do everything else.

Sunder also admitted that NIST did not bother to look in to the thermite theory of Steven Jones either. He then offered some very strange reasons for not doing so. According to him, the use of thermite for such an operation would not be possible because it would require a person to physically hold and press it against each and every beam in order for the reaction to occur. Huh?

It was also pointed out to Sunder that the use of thermite could potentially eliminate the effect of a loud explosion since it’s an incendiary. Sunder forged right over that point as well without addressing it.

There were other points as well that I can’t recall at the moment. I’m quite sure that as times goes on, many others much more qualified than myself will do a fantastic job of tying it all together and exposing the NIST “investigation” for the pathetic sham that it was.

Every single person in the

Every single person in the world working in a high rise building with a steel frame should be very afraid this morning.We now know that just one column failure at any given time,for any given reason will ultimately cause a total collapse of the building you are in at freefall speed.Instead of NIST making new recommendations should they not call for a worlwide demolition of these very dangerous paper tigers.All of this time,having worked with steel for 34 years,i have believed that steel could withstand any external event and use its incredible load transferring and heat transferring capabilities to make buildings like WTC7 totally safe and virtually indestructible,except for controlled demolition.My lifes work has been in vain because steel is now officially totally useless,sure it is good in tornado,s and earthquakes but just a little thermal expansion and it will turn high rise buildings into a house of cards.I studied both the WTC1+2 +WTC7 plans and concluded they were behemoths but again i was wrong,they were flawed,badly designed and vulnerable to 650 degrees C fires.I thought that fires seek out new supplies of oxygen and fuel and constantly move but i was wrong, it picks out the most vulnerable column and stays there until it cry,s for mercy.I now know people like Fourier and Newton were wrong and their theories were nonsense,i am not even worried about crashing my car anymore because as long as i am going faster the other car will just jump out of the way.

Oh who am i kidding! its just a tad more possible that NIST are talking total and complete bollocks,as we English say.Saying that the Marsh mallow man,just like in Ghostbusters,came and stepped on it makes more sense than one column failed and the rest is history.The only thing that would have capped off Sundar,s prattle was if he spoke in a Mr Bean voice,at least then i would have known it was supposed to be funny.

"I thought that fires seek

"I thought that fires seek out new supplies of oxygen and fuel and constantly move but i was wrong, it picks out the most vulnerable column and stays there until it cry,s for mercy."

Still, according to NIST itself, it accomplishes that in just 20 minutes:

"At any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed." That is, the office fires moving about died down in about 20 minutes at any single location in WTC 7.


The fires had to be extra severe also because the steel 1) was fire-protected and 2) kept conducting heat away from the source while being heated.

New document: Questions and

New document:

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation