Expect a coordinated push-back on WTC7 this summer

The BBC intends to release another episode in their 9/11 debunking saga, this one dedicated to WTC7. NIST is supposedly aiming for a summer release of their final report on WTC7.

Clearly, of all the visual anomalies of 9/11 that support the notion of controlled demolition on 9/11, the implosion of WTC7 is the most graphic and convincing. Even ardent defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory can't deny it.

If the OCT is so obviously true, why does the BBC feel the urge to spend millions of pounds hammering away at obvious fallacies?

And, slightly off topic, why isn't there ONE video of any of the alleged Arab "hijackers" getting on board ANY of the allegedly "hijacked" 9/11 planes?

The Third Tower on 9/11
Do we really know what happened on 9/11?

BBC Two: Friday, 4 April 2008

Hidden behind the Twin Towers stood World Trade Centre Building 7. This 610ft (186m), 47 storey skyscraper also collapsed on 11 September 2001.

An anonymous building from the outside it housed some very special occupants: the CIA, the Secret Service, and the very agency meant to combat terrorist attacks - the Office of Emergency Management.

According to the official explanation, this is the first and only building in the world to collapse solely due to fire.

For those who question the official account of what happened on 9/11, Building 7 has become a rallying cry. They think it can unlock a massive conspiracy.

Unlike the Twin Towers, WTC 7 was never hit by a plane. There were few outward signs of extensive damage of this 47 storey building. Yet it collapsed in a few seconds.

Afterwards, all of the many thousands of tonnes of steel from the building were taken away to be melted down in the Far East.

The Conspiracy Files reports as the final official report on Building 7 is due to be published, nearly seven years on from 9/11.

Producer and Director: Mike Rudin
Assistant Producer: James Giles


are they going to explain the premature reporting of the collapse of WTC7 many minutes before it did?
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

They'll just say "Oh, there

They'll just say "Oh, there were reports that the building was beginning to fail etc and they jumped the gun on the newswire". The BBC are completely establishment, there is zero chance of them taking on the 9/11 myth especially after what happened to Dr Kelly and Greg Dyke the head of the BBC back then being forced to stand down purely for trying to make the BBC act as a somewhat remotely free press. “The Conspiracy Files” is such a lame series also.


to give BBC a dose of Richard Gage.

Hope WeAReChange UK is making preparations.

We need the British Population to Wake UP with the Rest of US.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Who do you think BBC works for?

Characterizing the BBC as "completely establishment" is like characterizing Josef Stalin as "ill-humored."

The BBC was created and is owned by the UK government, and the UK has always kept it as a ready tool to promote and conceal according to the government's choosing. The UK government doesn't even need to infiltrate and bribe the BBC the way the British Secret Service and the CIA do with most corporate media: All it has ever has to do is coordinate the BBC with its other government operations.

As for "The Conspiracy Files", its purpose has always been exactly the opposite of what its name suggests. The whole idea is to tap into public suspicion that there may be mighty forces furtively working against the public's interest, and misdirect it away from anything of real import, instead selectively drawing it toward extraneous matters.

It all works analogously to _The Skeptical Inquirer_ magazine and its parent organization, CSICOPS: Here the idea is to tap into the public's desire to flatter itself as tough-mindedly skeptical, then misdirect it toward those who question the official accounts of things -- and away from any matters of, again, real import.

The forces that run our world have plenty of busy elves manipulating our thought in many, sometimes unexpected, places.

It's already been explained. Remember?...

It was a "cock-up".


DICK "So?" Cheney's?
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it


Q: And, slightly off topic, why isn't there ONE video of any of the alleged Arab "hijackers" getting on board ANY of the allegedly "hijacked" 9/11 planes?

A: No Arab Hijackers

Gee golly whiz

Heck, and I thought there was some good security reason to keep all that stuff hidden!

BBC intelligence

The BBC is part of the British intelligence community. Everyone in British intelligence knows this.

Regardless of jet fuel

Regardless of jet fuel melting steel- and the speed of gravity-

I would love to know how statistically probable it is for all of the buildings to collapse down into their own footprint? not sideways but straight down, not once but 3 times.

Surely with an event as random as crashing a plane into a building and fire this would be the most unlikly way for them to fall.


I think this is a somewhat risky term, as the twin towers clearly didn't collapse into their footprints but spread all across lower Manhattan.

WTC 7 dropped mostly within its footprint, but even it seriously damaged a building across the street. (It didn't radically damage the two buildings closest to it.)

WTC7 was a TALL, NARROW, massively braced steel-framed building


WTC7 was a TALL, NARROW, massively braced steel-framed building. For such a TALL, NARROW building to come down in such a precisely symmetrical fashion -- vs. falling off to the side -- and directly into its own footprint at about the speed of a falling brick; common sense would say that would be impossible; unless of course, it had a lot of demolition help. WTC7 came down as perfectly as can be . The 47 story tall building collapsed in a perfectly symmetrical fashion on 9/11. In fact you can put a ruler on the screen as you view the collapse and it comes PERFECTLY STRAIGHT DOWN ON A LINE! The collapse exhibited every single characteristic of a controlled demolition. And there was not a single characteristic of destruction by fire; much less asymmetrical fire or even asymmetrical damage. And yes, it came down into its footprint about as exactly as possible.

Plus, the Towers came symmetrically straight down. So their "target" so to speak was their footprint. The fact that material was being ejected horizontally and did not end up in the footprints only means something else other than straight forward gravity collapses were taking place. Because the towers came straight down yet stuff was thrown all over Manhattan and not ending up in their footprints -- since they did come straight down most everything should have been in or close to their footprints -- does not negate in the least the use of the term "footprint."

Going on.....

seven years with no answers. That in itself screams BULLSH*T. They will continue to stall, knowing that there is no reason other than the obvoius.


Expect a Coordinated Scientific Response from the GLOBAL 911 Truth Community.


We have a former Pro-Wrestler , ex Governor, Potential Senate / Presidential Candidate (2012) going public for 911 Truth.



So get ready to RUMBLE BBC.

911 WrestleMania.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Jesse Ventura is also a former Navy Seal with expertise in

demolitions, & is a best-selling author!

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321


The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Should I add Ventura to...

... this list I made?

"People with demolition expertise questioning 9/11"


Yes, Vesa. I would add Jesse to your list. Its a good one.

Yes, Vesa. I would add Jesse to your list. Its a good one.

Jesse Mentioned "Gulf of Tonkin" on Colbert

Jesse Ventura listed 3 lies we've been fed as justification for all-out revolution on The Colbert Report last night: 1) The Gulf of Tonkin, 2) WMD's, and 3) Iraq linked to al-Qaeda. I was hoping he would say "9/11" and I believe he was really tempted to do so!

It was a missed opportunity, but I really believe he will continue to be a strong ally of the truth movement. He has the balls. If there is going to be something big this year in D.C. (and please don't schedule it exactly on the 11th of Sept.!) then Jesse needs to be there speaking at Lafayette Park. And Willie, et al.

This will be a total hit

This will be a total hit piece, you can see them dressing it up as "What really happened to building 7" and they'll take the approach into about half of the program I'd bet and then start with the "go back to sleep, it's all rubbish, here’s the official explanation" etc etc.


This, and this you worthless, predictable cowards.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

Better yet...

Why don't you have Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg on to try and debunk what they have to say, as well as this you worthless, predictable cowards.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

WTC 7in "9/11: Press for Truth"

Incidentally, I was glad that both the location and destruction of WTC 7 were clearly shown in "9/11: Press for Truth".

Ahmadinejad 911 comments

Ahmadinejad in a speech just questionned the 9/11 events saying that it was a pretext for hegemonic wars and wondered how it could happen in the most protected airspace in the world.

He is obviously aware

Do you have a source?

On May 9th, 2006, in a letter addressed to our beloved President, Ahmadinejad said, "September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial? All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. "

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?


just watched it 10 mins ago on a speech LIVE on this great Iranian channel. I encourage people to go to their website (http://www.presstv.com/Programs.aspx) which has all the archives of their many in-depth debates featuring guests such as Thierry Messian or Ray McGovern.

I will soon look for a youtube source for you



The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

I created a blog entry

I created a blog entry waiting to be approuved:

here it is:

"But the names of the 3,000 people were never published and nobody was able to respond to the main question, which is how is it possible that with the best radar systems and intelligence networks the planes could crash undetected into the towers."


OF COURSE the article does not mention that he said at least two times in the preceding sentences how much pain and compassion he felt for the death of 3000 victims, but what do ou expect from yahoo news...

Please provide your sources and links for this.


The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

The Third Tower 1/2The

The Third Tower 1/2

The Third Tower 2/2

Please watch my movie: The Third Tower

Excellent video

Thank you for your efforts and contribution to the Truth Movement.

"The Third Tower" is the most compelling WTC 7 video i have seen.

The sound track in the second half is most effective.

I would suggest that you drop the "pull it" part for these reasons:
He was talking to a Fire Chief who does not have the authority to OK a demolition.
The appropriate government agencies would have to sign off on "pulling it" before a plan could be put into action.
It would be impossible to plan, get everything to the site, and rig WTC 7 in a 4 or 5 hours.

"Pull it" is subject to interpretation and is therefore, nebulous.
It could have been a slip of the tongue or just a bad choice of words.
Although it sounds important at first, it doesn't hold up to logic, and it just gives Truth Foggers something to rail about in their never ending battle to divert attention away from the facts.

The Third Tower is well done.

It's important to preserve Craig Bartmer's, Kevin McPadden's and Danny Jowenko's accounts. Eyewitness and expert first reactions are hard to beat!

It's a great account.. There should also be a 9/11 Hall of Shame. Jane Stanley, BBC reporter, and Larry Silverstein, WTC complex owner, should be the first inductees!

It's almost obvious the OCT of 9/11 suffered some gaps in its choreography.

On topic, if the BBC is going to provide a push this summer, it's evidence the 9/11 Truth movement is taking a toll that can no longer be ignored! I have complete confidence Dean Puckett in the U.K. can respond to the challenge!

...don't believe them!

GW---Great NYT Link

Thanks for the NYT piece dated just 11weeks after 9/11.

The reporter was James Glanz and he definitely took some literary license in describing WTC 7:

"it burned like a giant torch"----James Glanz
"hurling its beams into the ground like red hot spears"----James Glanz
"flaming pieces of steel:----James Glanz

"the buildings are not designed to be a torch"---Silvian Marcus ...structural engineer who helped design WTC 7

I never knew WTC 7 burned like a torch, there be some video somewhere, right?

Thanks and references

Thanks for posting this and organizing, Reprehensor.

For those interested starting on essays, videos, or webpages now, a good compilation of the existing reports and essays and FAQs on both sides is here --


And keep posting comments with links to our best work --

The Journal of 9/11 Studies

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Sometimes it's better just to refer to particular papers or presentations. Here are some I recommend:

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
Dr. Steven E. Jones, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Dr. Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Dr. Crockett Grabbe
In an effort to better understand the conditions that led to complete collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC 7, we apply scanning-electron-microscope (SEM) and energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (XEDS) methods to analyze the dust generated, with an emphasis on observed micro-spheres in the WTC dust. The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents along with other species in the WTC dust required extremely high temperatures. Our results are compared with those of other laboratories. The temperatures required for the molten sphere-formation and evaporation of materials as observed in the WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures associated with the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings.

Building 7, the Untold Story
Jim Hoffman slide presentation

Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?
Dr. Steven E. Jones
In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

9/11 – Acceleration Study Proves Explosive Demolition
Frank Legge (Ph D)
The topic of the downward acceleration of the buildings at the World Trade Centre has been frequently discussed. The discussion is usually brief and combined with other lines of evidence for explosive demolition and its significance is thereby obscured. Acceleration is an important topic because it is based on evidence readily available to all, namely videos, and also because the calculations involved are not complex and can easily be verified by the reader. The conclusion reached that explosives were used in the demolition of these buildings is therefore not only compelling but readily accessible.

Like Prof. Jones says...

Let's plan ahead.

Vic, (or anyone else), do you know of any Lawsuits that have been filed, (still active), that rely on a fire-driven collapse model at WTC7?

no I don't, sorry.

no I don't, sorry.


As long as there are no "energy beams".

Let's give Fetzer a Fit.


The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

From what I understand

From what I understand Steven Jones and Richard Gage feature in this new documentary- I wonder if they may be able to view an advanced screening or if they are still in contact with the director I wonder what vibes the get about this or if they have any inside info?

Maybe its me being naive or just amazed about how they will dismiss the scientific fact presented by the truth movement when there is no official explination- but maybe this time they will be more objective?

There was a huge backlash over the last one, and the whole fiasco with them being caught announcing building 7 coming down before it did has happened since the last one was made. It is inevitable that the truth over 911 will come out, so I would like to look forward to hope that it maybe the start of some fairer and more objective media coverage and investigation.

Again- if NIST cannot explain it, how can the BBC- the edivence is just too great.

About two years ago...

Alex Jones was interviewed by a BBC crew and they made it seem like they would be fair and balanced, and then they bashed the hell of him and 9/11 Truth in general.

They can't be trusted.

(Except for Adam Curtis' work, which is awesome.)

What do you expect from Presstitutes?


Top Journalist: "We are intellectual prostitutes"
John Swinton

John Swinton, the foremost journalist of his day, was asked to toast an independent press at a New York banquet given in his honour by other journalists. His response was clear and forthright:

“There is no such thing, at this stage of the world’s history in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dare write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Other of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my papers, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

“The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men.

“We are intellectual prostitutes.”

John Swinton, New York 1890.

Well it is up to us at 911 Blogger and all those Genuine Truth Sites to Correct This.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Criswell Predicts

I suspect a BBC giveaway of its disinformation ploy lies in this sentence from its promotional memo:

"There were few outward signs of extensive damage of this 47 storey building."

Take that in: "few outward signs". Oh ho, but it turns out, as the spectacular CGI -- almost enough to satisfy a Hollywood blockbuster -- will "demonstrate," that there was actually one whole heckuva lot of damage _inside_ Building 7!

And the copywriter who composed that memo knows that, because the folks at NIST were good enough to furtively pass along that that's just the line of bull that NIST will be serving up in its extremely long-awaited Building 7 "report"/coverup.

WTC7 was definately on fire,

WTC7 was definately on fire, but not 'burning like a torch'

From Steve Spak's DVD 'Day of Disaster'

ABC, 13:45

ABC, 13:54

NBC, 16:49

Please watch my movie: The Third Tower

In the first video, do you

In the first video, do you know what the guys are saying starting around 9.50?


Can you verify the times of the videos?

Is that EDT?

Carrying away the debris

The destruction of the debris may be given some lame excuse as in a National Geographic document where they said that the debris from the twin towers mixed up with that of building 7 and the search for survivors prevented WTC 7's debris from being investigated.

How could more victims have been found within the footprint of an evacuated building?

And even if that could have been the case, why would the debris have to have been destroyed week after week?

And to think that some people actually buy that crap...

"push-back on WTC7"

What does that mean?

"Push- back"

means to oppose by offering a counter narrative or counter argument.

(Just think someone pushes you and you push back in order to hold your position)

I've been tracking a concerted push-back in popular culture for some time now as the 9/11 truth movement has made serious inroads against the government's story of 9/11. This includes frequent mentions in news stories, mainstream movies and television shows as well as the never-ending stream of "non-fiction" books written by "experts" on the subject of terrorism, international relations and politics. I could spend decades debunking these books and may take on a few of the more popular ones at some point.

I hope that answers your question and that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

WTC 7 South Side FOIA Lof 07-76

FOIA Steps to retrieve WTC 7 South Side Photos and Videio is still pending and is ready to go to Federal Court in either the 1st or 2nd Circuits.

1- http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1035/1271282956_448b58c6bf_b.jpg
Above: NIST Responds August 2007.
2- http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/2712/wtc7steelni7.jpg
Above: It is the photo on page 11 labeled by Dr. Astanah as:
"Most probably from Building 7."
3- http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1418/1425638188_9f01602451_o.jpg
Above: Appeal regarding WTC 7 south side photos acknowledged
4- To: Assistant General Counsel for Administration (Office)
United States Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Avenue
Room 5898-C
N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230

December 23, 2007


Dear Sir or Madame:

I request an updated status of my Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) fee waiver appeal, which was acknowledged by the Assistant General Counsel for Administration Office on September 17, 2007.

Your fee waiver appeal is currently being processed. We expect to have a response out to you within the next two weeks.


Senior Counsel

Office of the General Counsel, General Law Division

U.S. Dept. of Commerce

phone: (202) 482-xxxx

fax: (202) 482-xxxx

e-mail: xxxxxxxxx
Dear Senator xxxxx,

First of all, I offer my congratulations on the passage of S. 2488, the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2007.

This law will enhance the Freedom of Information Act by (among other things) holding agencies accountable for their lack of compliance with the Act.

The establishment of the Office of Government Information Services in the National Archives and Records Administration to review agency compliance with FOIA is a great step toward ensuring public access to government records.

Senator, although this law went into effect after my own FOIA request (FOIA Log #07-76), I ask your help in expediting my request for information. Please refer me to the appropriate agency head, Senate sub-committee, or other outside agency that would be able to aid in expediting my FOIA request (FOIA Log # 07-76).

I have added an agency response to the end of this note for your reference. Note that the Department of Commerce stated that I would have an answer to my Fee Waiver appeal in two weeks. That statement was made by xxxxxx, Senior Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, General Law Division U.S. Dept. of Commerce in January 2008. It is now March 2008, and despite my repeated polite requests for status updates, the agency has not responded, even now that your sponsored bill is signed into law.

I would appreciate your guidance.

Thanks again,

March 26, 2008

P.S.: I will send the actual Fee waiver Appeal to your Office for your reference upon your request (in PDF format). All appeal(s) were filed in a timely manner.

March 27, 2008

Flaws and omissions in NIST hypothesis

All the debate has been on the evidence/proof of CD.

The evidence does not support the critical elements of the NIST hypothesis.

The fires were not sufficient to heat a column weighing over 7 tons per floor to 1058º F on 4 contiguous floors as is required in the NIST hypothesis.
NIST horizontal collapse hypothesis is absurd.
They offer NO explanation as to how core columns
58,59,60,61,63,64,66,67,69,70,72 and 73 failed.

Flaws and omissions in NIST hypothesis

The fires at the SW corner burned in the same offices for 3 to 4 hours.
On most floors, the windows on the west side of these offices never broke.
All the other fires moved from place to place leaving burned out areas.

Fires at south west corner

Best Evidence vs.Utter Claptrap

Let's stick with Kevin McPadden and Craig Bartmer and the unnamed police men who clearly stated that there was a bomb in the building and that it was going to blow up.Let's stay away from Indira Singh and her ambiguous statements.Let's jettison the weird notion that there were only a few small fires and that it was too far away from the Towers to be damaged significantly.Let's get our act in gear because now they are engaged with us and the whole world will be watching.The innacuracies and hyperbole surrounding this event can only undermine our efforts and hopes,so let's stick with the strong stuff and stay away from Eric Hufschmid and Jeff Rense and all the neo Nazi blowhard schtick which rushes to pin everything on a marble mouthed developer who NEVER admitted to conspiring with the NYFD to blow up anything.Now is our time and we can't afford ridiculous nonsense that can be debunked by my twelve year old son.It's great news that we have Jesse the Body on board but even he is touting some of the incorrect talking points that have been around for too long.We are on the cusp and we need to be razor sharp.We're almost there!!

Claptrap this

"Let's jettison the weird notion that there were only a few small fires and that it was too far away from the Towers to be damaged significantly."

Look at the facts from the NIST Apx. L report about the debris damage and the fire progression.

No "10 story gouge" in the middle of WTC 7

The debris damage to the south west part of WTC 7 had no significant effect on the initiating event* that led to the implosion of WTC 7.
There were NO reports of debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.

Damage to SW part of WTC 7

*The collapse of columns 79,80 and/or 81 at the EAST END of the core.

The fires were not sufficient to heat a column weighing over 7 tons per floor to
1058º F on 4 contiguous floors.

Flaws and omissions in NIST hypothesis



It will be interesting to see if Mr. Silverstein's latest public testimony with We Are Change ("the North Tower antenna brought WTC7 down") is considered

Hole is there,look.Silverstein didn't bite it.

Debris hit Building 7,creating some kind of hole.Videos clearly show beams and parts of the North Tower hitting the lower part of the building.Because propaganda meisters like Popular Mechanics exaggerate this does not mean it didn't happen. It did,and if you notice in the film provided earlier in this comment section,observers(firemen?) are mentioning it.If you read the fire personnel testimony that we cite often regarding explosions(118) you'll see that there is voluminous testimony on the buildings damage and concerns about it's structural integrity.It's important to get this right because people are all ears now.The outdated literature says that there were only a few small fires and nothing hit the building.Just because James Glanz and his ilk exaggerate and lie doesn't mean we have to do the same.It will hurt our cause if we deny the obvious facts that there serious fires in the building and it was hit with heavy chunks of the Towers.

Debris damage

There was no debris damage in the area of the initiating event* that led to the implosion of WTC 7.

* NIST Apx. L pg 31 – 34 [35 – 38 on pg counter]

Debris damage:

- Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18

- Damage starting at roof level…5 to 10 floors…near south west corner

- Large debris hole near center of the south face around floor 14 [west of center*]
[NIST Apx. L pg 18 – pg 22 on pg counter]

- South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground
[NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]

- No heavy debris in lobby area
- debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium, noted that the atrium glass (ground to 5th floor) was still intact
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- The only damage to the 9th floor south face occurred at the southwest corner
[FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20]

Other damage

- 8th or 9th Floor…2 elevator cars ejected into hallway north of elevator shaft, visible portion of south wall was gone . . . . . possibly damage extending to the west
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]

Explosion heard on floor 8
Start at 6:20 min.
[Warning: audio very loud and distorted, turn down volume before viewing]

* Steve Spak photograph with location of perimeter columns and floors added graphically by Winston Smith.

Looking from southeast corner of the south face:
Fire was seen on floor 12 on the south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke.
[NIST Apx. L pg 24]
[the face below floor 12 was not covered by smoke]

No serious debris damage to east half of south face was reported.

There is no serious damage east of center in the area that can be seen in this photo.


NIST Appendix L
[note: pg 18 is pg 22 on the page counter]

NIST Final 4-5-05

FEMA Chapter 5


The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not weaken or have a significant effect on the area of the initiating event.

NIST Apx. L pg 36

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. Progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel of the perimeter moment frame which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"

The report then talks about possible damage to core columns* and fires in the area of the initiating event.
*reference to elevators in hallway NORTH of the elevator shafts - not near the initiating event.

pg 37
" I2.1 South facade damaged
> I3.1 Perimeter moment frame redistributes loads around damage
> I4.1 Local failure only"

pg 41
"If a group of perimeter columns failed, the perimeter framing above this area would have redistributed its loads, due to the redundancy of the moment frame."

pg 42
" Initiating event scenarios from I4.4 to I4.6
> V1.1 Any perimeter column fails
> V2.1 Collapse does not progress vertically"

The report makes no further mention of the damage to the south face.

They have ruled out diesel fuel fires:
"The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by **normal building fires**, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks."

Fire progression

Using photographs and firefighters statements, NIST compiled a chronology of the fires in the of WTC 7.

The following is a summary of the fires in the east half of WTC 7 where the initiating event occurred.

NIST L 22–26
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12 burned west to east across the south side
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on floors 11 and 12 at SE corner, progressing north

About 3:00 p.m.
Fires on floors 7 and 12 along the north face
The fire on floor 12 spread in both directions, eventually reaching the NE corner

Sometime later, fires on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors 7, 8*, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out by this time.
[NIST did not publish this photo]
*that area had already burned out

There were fires on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13 in the area of the initiating event,
at different times.
The fires about an hour in any location.