Feds: Fire took down building next to twin towers By DEVLIN BARRETT –AP Google News

Article links to: * 9/11 Truth: http://www.911truth.org/

"Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation.""Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were used on the building.

Feds: Fire took down building next to twin towers


GAITHERSBURG, Md. (AP) — Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.

The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan in New York. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics long have argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.

Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper.

"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team.

Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.

The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition.

Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation.

"Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were used on the building.

Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows that internal column failure brought down the building.

Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's emergency operations command center.

The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.

"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder.

The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of the two large towers.

In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed.

The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one part of a building from spreading to other parts.

No one was killed in the collapse of building 7 because it had been fully evacuated. A new, slightly taller World Trade Center 7 opened in 2006.

A spokesman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.

"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan.

In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive."

"The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face."
On the Net:

* National Institute of Standards and Technology: http://www.nist.gov/
* 9/11 Truth: http://www.911truth.org/

Truth from Dr Sunder!

He's absolutely right - the obvious does 'stare you in the face'. That's why NIST and the dear old BBC have expended such effort in trying to divert people from it. And why they have yet to succeed.

Does anyone have a link to

Does anyone have a link to video of the NIST presentation on C-SPAN? I tried this one but it doesn't seem to work. It also says not yet aired for some reason?


Because of one beam being blown away the rest falls down ?

Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,

I understood that the NIST report tells us that because of one important girder breaking away from the structure, brought down the whole building. Does that mean that it was sufficent to dynamite this one beam and the rest of the building falls down ?



Why doesn't the

Why doesn't the 'Visualization Model' on the bottom right-hand side of the screen show the entire collapse? Is this to avoid dealing with the speed of the collapse?

good video NIST. Thanks for the link

Herblay FRANCE

good question which reminds me of the many videos showing the collapse of the north tower where we see metal sticking up and the video stops before we see all the dust settle down.

Does anyone have video of the WTC7 falling down taken from the north side? There has been some video on Youtube taken from the numberous helicopters flying around WTC before/during the collapses. How is it they do not have any video of WTC7 looking down on the tower or looking from the north side. I would like to have some more video on the east penthouse falling down.

AE911Truth News Conference is now archived -- Use Player -

AE911Truth News Conference is now archived -- Use Player -

Both will be archived here after the broadcasts.
AE911Truth News Conference is now archived -- Use Player -

Try the and HANG them

All those people passing this junk at NIST will have a nice 5 by 9 cell to contemplate the suicide of building 7 when we finally get this country back.

911 Was An Inside Job! For the mystery of Iniquity is now being revealed!

Let's "whoop some ass" !! EMAIL for ae911truth.org !!

The way to kick butt on this lie is to bring on 1,000's of member Architects & Engineers for ae911truth.org. NIST will look silly. -- EMAIL FOR AE911TRUTH.ORG -- Here is where to get names to email---> http://www.911blogger.com/node/17252#comment-195221

they used Mark Loizeaux to prove no controlled demo


The ONLY evidence they presented against controlled demo looks like it came from Mark Loizeaux, owner of CDI and who would be a prime suspect in a real investigation.

He is listed in the NIST report as an independent contractor working on the report.


...the investigator Sunder...insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive."


Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

What about the squibs?

The squibs preceded the collapse and were on the side of the building.

What about Larry Silverstein's comments? He got a call from the fire commander, didn't he. Didn't he suggest that the "smartest thing to do is pull it" Didn't they make that decision to pull?

""A spokesman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.

"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan.""

Make this guy earn his dirty money. He is the spokesliar for Larry Silverstein.

Contact: Dara McQuillan
Silverstein Properties, Inc.

The top corner "squibs" are probably not squibs

Here's my analysis of them:


Some people recall a History's Business episode from year 2002 in which the host had asked
the guest, Mr $stein, what happened to building 7, to which the guest
is said to have replied, "Oh, building 7 was a controlled demolition
for safety purposes".

Here's proof that Mr S really appeared as a guest in the program in question:


A lawyer has been trying to get a program copy from
the History Channel for a few months now, but in vain. He wrote
to me:

"AETN is now requiring a subpoena before any further efforts at
disclosure; I am working on some other angles, but nothing that I am
trying should keep anyone else from whatever they can think of."

So I thought about turning to you for advice. Should we start asking
people if anyone might have recorded the episode back in 2002? Any

I didn't get that update.

I was under the impression that they were squibs. I stand corrected. I didn't get that memo.

Are you certain that they are not results of a small explosive device? They do move upward in sequence and protrude from the building.

I actually thought that squib referred to the horizontal plume of debris that flew out as the result of an explosion.

That is not how it is defined after all.

It is the actual explosive, not the plume of debris. Did you know that?


A squib is a small explosive device used in a wide range of industries, from special effects to military applications. They resemble tiny sticks of dynamite in appearance and in construction, although with considerably less explosive power. Squibs can be used to generate mechanical force, as well as to provide visual pyrotechnic effects both in movies and in live theatrics. Being an explosive device, a squib releases a considerable amount of energy, and can therefore be used for shattering or propelling many different materials.[1]
A squib generally consists of a small tube filled with an explosive substance, and a detonator running through the length of its core, similar to a stick of dynamite. Also similar to dynamite, the detonator can be a slow-burning fuse, or as is more common today, a wire connected to a remote electronic trigger.[2] Squibs range in size, anywhere from 2 to 15 millimeters in diameter.[1]
Squibs are sometimes confused with electric matches, as well as with detonators. While those are used specifically to trigger larger explosives, squibs are generally used as the main explosive element.[1]

They appear to be debris / broken wall elements

I'm not 100 percent sure, but the fact is two of the dark "blobs" are *stationery* on the wall even before the building starts to fall.

When the building falls, some additional blobs seem to appear. It may be the debris or broken wall is moving a bit. It is difficult to say. But they cannot be unequivocally regarded as what has come to be known as "squibs" in these discussions.

Richard Gage agreed with this analysis, and in the BBC doc, he said some people think they are squibs, while others do not.

Finally, they don't forcefully protrude from the wall as in the twin towers. They are just dark "blobs" that move slightly. There are much, *much* better arguments for CD.

Shyam Sunder caught in a lie

Sunder says there were no explosions loud enough to have been the cutter charges for Building 7.

Here are two of them, on video, right before the collapse of Building 7.


Not a "lie"

He may be misrepresenting the situation but we have no evidence he is "lying", so that was a poor choice of words to have been used in a news story and makes us look emotional and irrational.

My guess is that Sunder has convinced himself, and when that happens, to keep sanity, a person blocks out what doesn't fit, doesn't look, ignores, goes into denial. This is not lying. If he were to have previously said that he heard explosions and then now say he didn't, that might be considered lying. For all we know he is 100% unaware of the sounds, or believes they are not connected, or believes that those sounds were not loud enough . . .

If you are going to charge someone with "lying" you need to be able to prove that with intent, not with sounds.

So, you are phychoanalysing Sunder?

and I am the one jumping to conclusions?

How about the other article I link to on this site, the one where they use Mark Loizeaux's "no blown-out windows" evidence to prove no controled demolition?

Does Sunder talk about that in the video? I wonder why not. Perhaps because even he knows how that will look if examined too closely.

But in the end, it isn't the "sounds" that prove he is lying in my article, it is the fact that the video that has these sounds on it exists... AND how he BEHAVES when talking about it NOT existing, that makes me conclude he is lying.

Perhaps you should have read the entire article.

It's not about Sunder -- to

It's not about Sunder -- to say anyone is lying w/o evidence is baseless, regardless of how much one might think he is lying.

I do have a masters in psychology, so yes, I may "psychoanalyze" at times! But that's not something we can submit as a comment.

If you find contradictory evidence, write it up, describe it, document it, and it will make the case on it's own. Then please submit it as a comment to NIST. We have until Sept 15. Every strong submission will help. It will likely become a part of the public record. As Steve says, stick to the hard evidence. That's how we build the irrefutable case.

In this case, we can't prove lies, but we can charge negligence -- probably criminal -- in the way the existing evidence is being ignored.


since Sunder says there are no recordings of explosions loud enough to have been what "cut" those beams, the video that I provided a link too IS strong evidence that there IS a recording of just such explosions.

Is that not "hard evidence"?

Let's face it; that is his only "evidence" that there was no controled demolition. That's what he said on the video, and in section 3.3 of the report, they list that and the simulation (created by the "contractor" Mark Loiseaux?) as the ONLY evidence that there was no controled demolition.

This video is important because it clearly contradicts what Sunder said in the video release and what he said in the news conference.


But just so you understand me; my website is a "blog". It is about facts, news, theories, and yes, emotional connection to the subject matter.

If I tend to elaborate on stories of significance because I am emotionally connected to the subject, then, isn't that part of what blogs are about? As long as I stay well within the logical conclusions of the evidence I provide?

In fact, other blogers, one on the front page here, are ALSO suggesting that Sunders lied during the news conference. Hell, I think even Gage himself came to that conclusion in his conference on No Lies Radio.

In short, my site is not a legal argument it is a blog. Apparently you have training in related fields to what I concluded. You tell me that guy didn't LOOK like he was lying? Of course he did. I'm sick of being lied to by government agencies and so yes, I call them like I see them. Especially when I have solid evidence that what he is saying isn't factual.

now, you may be right; there is no way of knowing whether or not he had seen this video.

But I will tell you this; I have more physical evidence to support my claim that he is lying than he has to prove fire brought down that building.

I also think he is lying.

I think these scientists at NIST, who were selected by the Bush Administration, were paid to make up a "plausible" alternative explanation for what is obviously a controlled demolition.

They are knowingly misdirecting the public. Controlled demolition wasn't one of their options, even though it is the obvious answer. Could you imagine NIST coming out with the answer "After 7 years of research, we have come to the conclusion that it was in fact a controlled demolition using nano-thermate." ?? Of course not. Their job was to come up with an explanation that wasn't controlled demolition. Why do you think it took them so long? If controlled demolition was one of their options, and it wasn't charged with any criminal implications, it would have taken seconds, not years to come to that conclusion.


I'm sure NIST could say it was Al Qaeda that blew up WTC7 and the MSM wouldn't question it.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

>>since Sunder says there

>>since Sunder says there are no recordings of explosions loud enough to have been what "cut" those beams, the video that I provided a link too IS strong evidence that there IS a recording of just such explosions. Is that not "hard evidence"?

All he would have to say is that he'd never seen those recordings to show he wasn't lying. You have to show he has heard them to prove he is lying.

>>But I will tell you this; I have more physical evidence to support my claim that he is lying than he has to prove fire brought down that building.

You do, but when you move to his level of "evidence," what is achieved? He has nothing but a firewall of computer simulations to try to block anyone from looking. And his authority and reputation. Nothing more

Average people recoil at someone calling a person in authority a liar if they are not sure that he is.

If the audience we are trying to reach believe he is lying, we merely confirm it for them.

If the audience we are trying to reach are not sure, we risk turning them away by making claims without hard evidence.

It all depends who you are trying to reach. Sometimes you can expose someone who is probably lying without ever having to say it.

If he is in denial, then he

If he is in denial, then he is lying to himself. If he can lie to himself, he will have no problem lying to others.

No autopsy..

Anthrax...no autopsy....end of story..... Twin towers/bldg7...no autopsies....end of story...

Indeed. But that's not

Indeed. But that's not proof of lying. A more powerful credible argument can be made without having to say "liar"

This article is everywhere and it links to...

Google search: "Feds: Fire took down building next to twin towers" By DEVLIN BARRETT


This article is everywhere and it links to... 9/11 Truth: http://www.911truth.org/.

I've suggested to Mike Berger that he put a WTC7 Implosion video front, top, center of his opening page.

duplicate entry

As you know, I agree. WTC 7 Video Should be Front Page Top!

Chances are great that many readers will be clicking the link to http:www.911truth.org for the first time. It is also likely that many who go there have never see the actual videos of the "near free-fall" , symmetrical collapse of the 47 story building.

This is a real opportunity for the site to show new viewers the compelling videos. I think the site should put the best evidence up front so that newcomers could see it as soon as the site opens. I would show videos of the collapse. I would show video of the molten steel comments from 1st responders. I would also put Larry Silverstein's comments from the PBS documentary up front for the newcomers to see. Most people are basically lazy and their attention spans are short. They are not going to dig around the site to find evidence.

I think timing is of the essence as the window of opportunity for presenting our case to the newcomers will only be open for a short period.

I know it is Mike Berger's site and the content decisions are his to make, but I think these are pertinent suggestions.

As of now, the site has not changed.


North Texans for 911 Truth (new site)
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site