WTC 7 Was An Asymmetric Shape . . . So Why Did it Collapse Symmetrically?

(blog updated 8/23/2008 - 1345 Central)

World Trade Center building 7 was not a square or a rectangle, but a trapezoid:

As such, the larger side of the building would be heavier and more massive.

NIST claims that column 79 collapsed, leading to the collapse of the whole building.

Column 79 was located towards the larger end of the building (towards the bottom of the following diagram):

Because NIST claims that only column 79 was destroyed in the beginning of the collapse sequence, and because the same side of the building in which 79 was located was the bigger, heavier side of the building, two different influences should have ensured that the building tilted toward the bigger end.

If column 79 had collapsed and explosives did not take out all of the other support columns at once, building 7 should have tipped towards one side.

At the very least, since the building was asymmetric, it should have collapsed in an asymmetric fashion.

If the collapse had started at the base of the building, then perhaps the wider base on the larger side of the building might have compensated for the greater weight. However, NIST states that the collapse started at the thirteenth floor. The wider base should not have offset the greater weight and failure so high up - from the 13th floor upwards - at least not entirely. In the absence of explosives, we still should have seen substantial deformities, buckling and/or tipping.

Even if the larger side of the building was so reinforced that it was stronger than the smaller side, it should have collapsed asymmetrically.

In other words, under any scenario, it should not have fallen down in a perfectly straight-down, symmetric fashion.

A reporter from Popular Mechanics

actually asked a good question: why in fact did building 7 fall straight down. The NIST spokesperson fumbled for a minute or so before saying that it was not a controlled demolition, but didn't answer the reporter's question.

How does NIST even know that 79 failed?

Like honestly, how the f*ck would they know that? I thought the building was reduced to a pile of rubble, but what do I know...

As I understand this

they needed the buckling of 79 for their failure inition sequence in their computer modelling. It's blatandly absurd.

The critical column 79 is result of the computer modelling, aka, they need this one to fail to get the wanted results. They have no evidence that this all is true.

Then they pass over global or progressive collapse as before:

The buckling of the interior columns [...] was followed by the buckling of the
exterior columns.
Once column support was lost in the lower floors, the remaining structure above began to fall vertically as a single unit.

Page 114, NIST NCSTAR1-9 for Public Comment.

To have this column failing, they have to take a deep tricky breath from wonderland.

A thermal analysis was conducted of Column 79 typical of lower floors (W14x730 section with 2 in. x 26 in. cover plates) and 7/8 in. of thermal insulation (see Chapter 9). Based on the knowledge that the yield strength of steel is reduced to 50 percent of its room temperature value at approximately 500 ºC to 600 ºC, it was found that it would take roughly 6 h of continuous exposure from a fully developed fire to
reach these temperatures.
Heating of a column could occur as a result of a building contents fire, or as had been suggested, from a fuel oil fire resulting from rupture of a fuel line supplying one of several emergency generators in the building. Prediction of growth and spread of building contents fires (Chapter 9) indicated that such fires did not persist at any one location for more than about 20 min to 30 min, which is consistent with observations of fires in windows (Chapter 5). Therefore, it would not have been possible for a building contents fire to have heated a massive, insulated column such as Column 79 to the point of failure.

Vol. 1

The following is a list of findings common to the three Cases.
• In none of the Cases did any of the columns, all of which were insulated, reach temperatures sufficiently high for significant loss of strength or stiffness.
o The temperatures of the large interior Columns 79, 80, and 81 stayed below 200 ºC on all of the floors.


So they manipulated a set of data inputs into their modelling and archieved their result, thw whole volume 2 is kind of magic pictures- but science is something different.

Is there a video of the reporter from Pop Mec asks his question?

Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,

Is there a video link to the reporter from Popular Mechanics asking his question.

Yours John

update 23/08/2008 14h32 French time
Perhaps it is here ?
In listening to this video I do not agree with Shyam Sunder.
1) He says buildings are not made to withstand an airplane impact. Mr Sunder the two world trade center towers were designed to withstand a loaded Boeing 707 !
2) about the use of thermite he says " ... someone has to keep pushing it" but Mr Sunders in normal demolition of steel structures there is no one there to do what you say and the builldings come down as expected !

3) Mr Sunder why do you not validate your work by a peer group ?

4) can anyone confim the water sprinkler system ? That is the piping of the sprinklers and what floors were covered by the overhead tank.

5) is there no photos or video of the south side ? I would like to see how the east penthouse went down seconds before the rest. The video from the north side is not explicit enough.

Great photo of WTC7. Most

Great photo of WTC7.

Most people I show a photo of WTC7 to are amazed (at its height) . . . Just saying it was 47 stories doesn't make the point as much as a photo - truly worth a thousand words . . .

And even with an obvious blazing fire which there wasn't here, it would not have collapsed . . . etc, etc, etc (re all the other scientific points) . . . but this simple point has made inroads for me with others.

1. Show a WTC7 photo in all its glory, like this one posted here.
2. Show the WTC7 photo with minimal fire.
3. Show the collapse in its footprint.

This simple process finally made a point to my Ivy league educated (electrical engineer major) brother (who's now 45) when nothing I said for the last three years did . . .

He's still not convinced, but it was a minor breakthrough . . .

I use the same photo

This photo of the intact WTC 7 building from above shows it's enormity in contrast to the street below.

I gave a presentation in Walkerton, Ontario a couple of months ago and used that photo with the fire photos and a rubble photo and added the caption that this happened in 6.6 seconds.

I think it is the best combination to show people concerning WTC 7 for the reasons you state.

Rep posted this elsewhere


9/11: Modern Marvels: Engineering Disasters - WTC Building 7

I don't get it

So the MilGov NIST report is claiming that the entire building was designed to be held up entirely by one single column? Is that the gist of it? It had no other redundant support at all?

Yes, asymmetrical and symmetrical at the same time

"report is claiming that the entire building was designed to be held up entirely by one single column? Is that the gist of it? It had no other redundant support at all?"

Not really designed that way, but they are claiming that the failure of column 79 caused the other columns to fail after the asymmetrical collapse of the building that appeared to everyone as a symmetrical collapse due to the fact that the outer part of the building was a "shell" that fell symmetrically after the inside of it fell asymmetrically starting at the point of initial collapse (column 79).
This is not a joke. This is the explanation. This presentation needs to be uploaded onto to google video or another place.
This makes the FBI and their anthrax investigation look like Sherlock Holms.

I have made a copy and suggest others do as well

Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,

I have made a copy and suggest others do as well because one day they could pull it like they did with the PNAC documents.

And as I said before if taking out just one column brings everything down it would have needed so little explosives and a little bang to bring the building down.



NIST' s argumentation contradicts itself:

First they claim that because the outer collums were stronger (more of them than connected interior ones)
the expanding girders pushed the interior ones leading to failing floors leading to long distances of unsupported collums leading to buckling of interior collums leading to progression of INTERIOR collapse...

BUT..when after complete interior collapse the outer shell remains standing, should not ITSELF BUCKLE or TIP OVER because of lack of interior support instead of sinking straight into the earth?!?!

AOL poll of 180,000 people about Building 7

AOL has the Building 7 story featured.

The stats vary periodically, but at about 180,000 people polled...

47% answered "NO!" to the question...
"Do you believe that fire brought down World Trade Center 7?

57% answered "YES!" to the question...
"Do you think federal officials are hiding anything about the 9/11 attacks?"

NIST really messed-up on this one...the public ain't buying their crap. NIST dug a deep hole for themselves. They are going down with their outrageous lies.

Here is the AOL story link


"A spokeswoman 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 spokeswoman Dara McQuillen."
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

"Hopefully this thorough

"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,"


==> "Assert with authority, then immediately change the subject to something emotional"

Textbook play.


Like the Anthrax Finale, People ain't buying it.

Please do

Believers in fire demolition are now leading.

But Silverstein Said...

Do you guys remember when Lyerly Slitherstein told We Are Change Philly that it was damage from the ANTENNA, that sliced through building 7 that caused the "collapse?" Not only is this guy guilty of treason and mass murder, but add insurance fraud on top of that!


I love you, man, but I think the first of your two influences is not correct. Assuming mass and strength were proportional throughout the structure, the larger side also had a wider base to counter its additional size. If I am wrong on this, I will gladly stand corrected.

The rest of your comments are spot on.

August is not over with yet, and it has been an incredible month for 9/11 Truth. The story from Hersh about Cheney's false flag plans with the Navy Seals; the forgery exposed by Suskind; and now, the final NIST report, which is patently absurd.

I am really looking forward to seeing a detailed dissection of this NIST lunacy.


I was wondering the same thing at first.

But that's only true if the collapse started at the bottom. if it started at a higher floor, it should have tilted that way.

I added this to the end of the essay:

NOTE: If the collapse had started at the base of the building, then perhaps the wider base on the larger side of the building might have compensated for the great weight. However, NIST states that the collapse started at the thirteenth floor. The wider base should not have offset the greater weight and failure so high up - from the 13th floor upwards - at least not entirely. We still should have seen substantial deformities, buckling and/or tipping.

This is taking the debate in the direction...

... that NIST and debunkers welcome.

There is no reason to assume that any collapse should have initiated, given that we are talking about normal office fires that, even according to NIST, die out in any given location in about 20 minutes. There is only so much to burn in a cubicle, etc. That is, not so much.

Such fires have simply no time to heat any fireproofed and insulated steel to such temperatures that it would weaken.

You are right, in part

But it's worse than that.

George's assumption is based on a too-simplistic "all things being equal" concept that could be better compared to an irregular trapezoidal prism (I believe that's what WTC 7 really is, basically) that is made out of one material like you would a small (?) model with sides only.

The actual engineering design of the building could actually be such that the exact opposite of his supposition could be true (or any other scenario) due to the highly complex forces involved because of its design and construction and building materials.

That's why engineers need to be doing this stuff.

I could be wrong now, but I don't think so, it's a jungle out there.

AND.... don't forget

It was also SO unexpected, you know, for the THIRD steel and concrete building in the history of modern architecture to crumble straight down into its own footprint "due to *fire", that its collapse was announced by the BBC 23 minutes BEFORE it actually occurred. [/sarcasm]

Here's the entire C-SPAN

Here's the entire C-SPAN broadcast in Flash format for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

Here's a clip of the lights being killed.

These so called experts used

These so called experts used the terms "extraordinary" and "rare" events,then on the flip side you have firefighters saying the building is going to blow up and the BBC saying it had already or was about to collapse.Events that have never happened before are more than extraordinary or rare they are unique..How can anybody predict a unique event without having foreknowledge?.The firefighters did not say the buildings might collapse they were very clear and direct "That building is going to blow up" and "That building is coming down".NIST would say that predicting a unique event is "improbable " or "not likely" where as any right thinking person would say "IMPOSSIBLE".

Yes, this is a ludicrous contradiction

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

Monocoque construction

Hi George.

This is not a troll attack - I admire your work greatly. I would however like to throw this into the discussion...

There is a great deal of truth to the concept of the building's skin possibly containing some side loading. Just like the monocoque construction of your car or the first and best example... the egg.

A building constructed like this has two main load bearing structures: The main beams for compression loading and the skin for torsion and side loading.

It is conceivable [nothing more than conceivable] that given the total collapse of the structure due to the charges planted on the main beams, the 'skin' might have contained any off-centre forces.

It wouldn't have to last for long given that the whole process took only 6.6 seconds. By the time the skin failed, the bulk of the off-centre mass would have moved past that point.

Given that the skin was hung off of the central core, a collapse of the core would apply inward force on the members holding the skin. For a brief moment, the skin would have been pulled inward and have been under tension. Possibly causing a situation where the structure was in the strongest configuration to contain outward force.

On the other hand... I could be wrong.

All that aside... Keep up the good work. Your investigative efforts are important and appreciated.


Our hidden victory

Hidden within the categorical dismissal of a collapse due to planted explosives is one of our biggest victories to date. If Sunder wanted to successfully deflect the "conspiracy theories," he would have needed a "Karl Rove-type" strategist to help him with his speech, which obviously the government didn't provide. Everyone should notice carefully that he spent the first five minutes of his presentation closing the door on the conspiracy theorists. Why? That's not part of the scientific method, nor was he in a room full of conspiracy theorists. The media represented in the room has not been hounding NIST, so what's the big deal? If NIST had really debunked alternative theories, scientifically, he would have given the public a sampling of some of the scientific findings supporting that conclusion at the proper place and time in his presentation. But he didn't give any because he didn't have any. That's good news in and of itself.

We all know why he said what he said -- because he knew how mainstream media would report it, with the hope that the reporting would take off some of the heat NIST has been getting. By opening his remarks this way, he's saying (under his breath) that he has no intention on discussing (or investigating) alternative views. This is huge for us for several reasons. First, it means that the scientific challenges NIST has received, contrary to what he said, ARE credible and plausible, or he would not have even brought it up, let alone open his presentation with a dismissal. It also means that some of these challenges, more than likely, came from scientists and engineers not directly connected to 9/11 truth, which means we have honest allies in certain camps that we don't even know about. And lastly, what we should all be extremely proud about is that our efforts to raise awareness, person by person, street corner by street corner, without the help of the mainstream media, politicians, universities, etc. is really working. So everybody stop worrying about the lack of media attention, give a toast to yourself, kiss the next pretty girl that you see, and move forward with confidence knowing that the truth WILL prevail.

You Can Say That Again!

"And lastly, what we should all be extremely proud about is that our efforts to raise awareness, person by person, street corner by street corner, without the help of the mainstream media, politicians, universities, etc. is really working. So everybody stop worrying about the lack of media attention, give a toast to yourself, kiss the next pretty girl that you see, and move forward with confidence knowing that the truth WILL prevail."

Yes and...

... controlled demolition was one of the main topics of the Q & A session as well! There were in fact several questions that almost caused NIST's argument to fall a-Sunder.

And Shane's treatment was fascist and can be seen by anyone on the net.

Wish I could believe the truth will prevail

Don't wanna rain on Peacenik's parade, but there are SO many forces arrayed against us. Not the least of which is that even many people who are convinced that we are right won't admit it publicly because they fear they may lose their job.

Not that I'm giving up, far from it. I worked my ass off researching and writing the lead story for the Sept Rock Creek Free Press about the anthrax cover-up, and it got picked up by Dissident Voice at I will be interviewed on Kevin Barrett's No Lies Radio on Monday night 8/25/08.

I had two conversations yesterday that shed light on the challenges we face. One with someone I have little in common with: a 22 year old single mom living with her mother. I had given her a copy of the Creek to read.

her: I read your article...I don't agree. I don't think we need to know everything our govt is doing. I support our govt...I voted for Bush.

me: Any regrets about that?

her: None at all. I don't want Obama, I want McCain. We need to stay in Iraq and finish what we started.

me: What are we trying to finish?

her: That I can't say...I'm too busy with my boy to really keep up on things...but we shouldn't leave until we achieve our purpose there.

I guess she means we're not done stealing their oil.

The other conversation was with a journalist friend who was briefly in the White House press corps. He told me about how Tony Snow approached him and asked if he'd like to take a ride on Air Force One. My friend said sure. Tony said, okay, then please ask the Prez this question: _________. My friend raised his hand, was called on by name, asked the planted question, and then Shrub read the answer right off the teleprompter.

Now my friend has a photo of himself on Air Force One of which he's very proud.

Don't worry......

I have an umbrella, a rain slicker and I know how to swim. One thing I'd encourage is to observe history carefully. In1974, not everyone had a gun pointed to Richard Nixon's head, yet we got rid of him. Similarly, if you were to ask just about anyone, say in 1985, if they believed the Soviet Union would collapse within ten years and little republics a quarter of the size of Brooklyn would become independent nations, they would have thought you to be completely nuts, a wack-job, even crazier than a "conspiracy theorist." Some of us have witnessed some amazing things in our lifetime and we should take note that big changes do happen -- and happen unpredictably, sometimes for the most unusual reasons. The Rock Creek Press is one of hundreds of reasons I have hope. It's popular with people I know who haven't yet bought into 911 truth -- people waiting for me to give them the next edition. One of the things that impresses even the debunkers is our passion and commitment. What choice do we have not to believe? Why bother if we don't believe? Please, keep on believing. It's our belief, more than anything else that will change the tide, probably in a most unusual way.

Unfortunately your example about Nixon doesn't cheer me...

I suspect that Nixon was removed from office because he was not sufficiently compliant with his masters. You see how Woodward's career has been blessed ever since.

Same with Agnew, who was forced out first so they could get rid of Nixon and not have Agnew be prez. Agnew wrote a book, still available on Amazon, called "Go Quietly or Else." That title pretty much states the offer he was made.

Things have gotten much, much worse since the 70s, especially since the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Just in researching the anthrax piece, I could see that there was quite a bit of truth in the MSM in 2001, immediately after the anthrax attacks. Today they almost uniformly tow the party line, even to the point of ignoring or denying facts that they themselves reported back in 2001!

Thanks for your appreciative words about the Creek. We are, I think, in a race against time. Will enough people wake up before the police state has oppressed all forms of free speech? The novel 1984 depicts a world where the poilce state has grown so large that no dissent, no assembly, no resistance of any kind has a chance to get started.

There's no chance I'll stop believing what I believe--that's not possible. But it by no means looks to me like our success is a slam-dunk. If they succeed in censoring the Internet, we're toast.

Regarding NIST's Collapse Simulation

Honestly, all you have to do is watch the animation that NIST created to realize what a hoax their whole report is. The animation only shows a partial collapse of one side of the interior before the exterior seems to start to buckle and fall into itself. I suppose that's when the rest of the building is supposed to have followed, but guess what? THEY DON'T EVEN SHOW THE WHOLE ANIMATION!!! It's clearly evident the reason they don't show the whole thing is because their timing of the event does not match the timing of the REAL LIVE EVENT. The event we all have witnessed time and time again. The simulation lasts about 18 seconds and the building is still standing. But after about 8 seconds in REAL LIFE, the building was gone! In the simulation it even appears that the building was starting to tip over backwards, but in REAL LIFE, that did not happen. It fell straight down and went poof.

You know, it doesn't even matter at this point if it was Neocons or Wookies that planted the explosives, it's the forensic evidence that doesn't lie. That building did NOT collapse due to fires. Nope. Nine. Nyet. Anyone who thinks it did or that it was even possible has a brain that does not operate within this reality. When have you ever witnessed a skyscraper turn to dust due to simple office fires? NEVER. All that steel and concrete was obliterated and a simple fire cannot cause that to happen.

Unlike the laws of the United States Constitution, the laws of physics are not so easily ignored or amended.