I received the following email from the 911nycmeetup Yahoo group mailing list from the moderator, Angie of http://angieon911.com/:
I do not believe that WTC's collapse can be explained due to the southwest corner damage and I replied as followsAngie said:911 Truth Movement writing about World Trade Center Building #7 and
what damage it sustained before it collapsed has NOT been revised, for
the most part, in light of new information released. Most 911 writing
& advocacy about WTC7 just ignores the new stuff, neither
incorporating it into their theories, nor rebutting it. This year,
numerous transcripts of interviews (taken starting a month post 9/11)
of firefighters present around WTC7 before its collapse were released
on the New York Times' website pursuant to their lawsuit. They're
And these statements quoted many different firefighters describing
significant structural damage to WTC7 never previously mentioned
(entirely scooped out floors or building sections, for example)
presumably caused by falling WTC1&2 debris as well as significant
fires. The firefighters on the scene felt themselves, and/or had been
told, that WTC7 would collapse HOURS before it did because of same,
and because of loud creaking noises they heard while inside of it, and
as a matter of fact, they were ordered back blocks far enough away in
advance to be out of the line of fire when it did, in fact, collapse.
I don't recall ANY of the firefighters expressing during these
transcripts any surprise that WTC7 would fall or did fall under the
conditions they witnessed, just one firefighter's surprise that they
weren't even trying to put out the fire. One exception to not dealing
with any of this stuff in the often repeated WTC#7 Truth Movement
literature is David Ray Griffin's article at
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html which mentions some
of this new information and which essentially concludes that there are
too many discrepancies among the many different firefighter
descriptions of the greater structural damage & fires in WTC7 to
reconcile or credit, and that even with greater structural damage &
more significant fires, the building shouldn't have collapsed
in the manner in which it did. The new "Debunking 9/11 Myths" book by
Popular Mechanics (on page 159) cites to a photograph in the NIST
report, L-22a, which it says "clearly shows that debris from WTC 1's
collapse scooped out a huge chunk of the southwest corner of the
building." You can see the picture here:
on page 24, and page 25 which NIST says shows the reported damage from
floors 8 to 18. 911 Truth Movement will lose credibility by the
continuing chants regarding WTC7 which "wasn't even hit by a plane",
etc., if it fails to also address these firefighter witnesses'
testimony and photos because when well written debunking material -
which is all the rage now [in books, websites, television shows, and
even podcasts per Nico] containing on point & relevant quotes from
witnessing firefighters is seen to contradict what lots of people in
the movement lead off with, WTC7 being "the smoking gun", well it
won't be pretty.
911 Truth Movement Musings (Watching the Watchers)
My question is, given the first quote above, how many people consider is relatively probable that WTC 7 collapsed due to southwest corner damage or something *other* than controlled demolitions?me said:> I don't recall ANY of the firefighters expressing
> during these
> transcripts any surprise that WTC7 would fall or did
> fall under the
> conditions they witnessed, just one firefighter's
> surprise that they
> weren't even trying to put out the fire. One
Given that WTC 1 and 2 had already collapsed long before WTC 7, what surprise was left for the shocked city? I am not surprised that they were not surprised, particularly if they were *told* that the building was coming down, as David Ray Griffin discusses. Minds in shock are easily influenced. When I first saw footage of WTC 7 collapse, I was in mild shock from the events of the day and, while a bit puzzled, was not surprised precisely because WTC 1 and 2 had already collapsed.
> in the manner in which it did. The new "Debunking
> 9/11 Myths" book by
> Popular Mechanics (on page 159) cites to a
> photograph in the NIST
> report, L-22a, which it says "clearly shows that
> debris from WTC 1's
> collapse scooped out a huge chunk of the southwest
> corner of the
> building." You can see the picture here:
> on page 24, and page 25 which NIST says shows the
> reported damage from
> floors 8 to 18.
Yet, this same report states the following:
The collapse of WTC 7 was recorded on several videos from locations northeast and northwest of the
building. Study of these videos led to the development of the timeline in Table L-1, which lists the
visible external sequence of events. Figures L-25 to L-28 are images from a CBS News Archives video
that show key points observed during the collapse.
The deformed shape of the east penthouse roof shows that the middle fell before the sides (see Fig. L-25),
as the whole penthouse drops into the main building (see Fig. L-26). This may imply that support
initially remained on the east and west edges of the east penthouse. Therefore, the perimeter columns on
the east side of the building which have not already been considered least likely, may be considered less
likely locations for collapse initiation.
Since the scooped out section was in the southwest perimeter columns, the NIST itself does not credit that scooped out section as being the cause of collapse, focusing entirely on the *east* side. Why? Most likely because the NIST knows damn well that damage to the southwest corner will not cause collapse to initiate in the northeast corner. The NIST is asserting that the interior columns, specifically column 79, figure L-45, appear to be the initial column causing collapse...this collapse is nowhere near any of the photographed damaged areas. The central damage to the south facade occurs in the area of the lobby and atriums [i.e. figures L-8 and L-9]. The presence of these open air regions helps to explain why damage would be more pronounced in those areas: more glass and open air, less steel and concrete.
I believe David Ray Griffin is correct in asserting that the assymetric damage to the building could not have led to symmetric collapse. There is no real evidence that I see in this report that fire caused the collapse, other than pure speculation.
Again, controlled demolitions is a much more reasonable explanation of the symmetric and rapid collapse which can be observed.
>911 Truth Movement will lose
> credibility by the
> continuing chants regarding WTC7 which "wasn't even
> hit by a plane",
> etc., if it fails to also address these firefighter
> testimony and photos because when well written
> debunking material -
> which is all the rage now [in books, websites,
> television shows, and
> even podcasts per Nico] containing on point &
> relevant quotes from
> witnessing firefighters is seen to contradict what
> lots of people in
> the movement lead off with, WTC7 being "the smoking
> gun", well it
> won't be pretty.
Figure L-29 in the NIST document establishes the location of the "kink" in relation to the building collapse. This image places the exterior building damage in relation to the zone of collapse. The building collapsed in the area *not* structurally damaged by WTC debris.
Page 55 of the document states
The debris from a 40-story vertical collapse on the east side of the building would fall down
onto the strong diaphragms at Floors 5 and 7 and possibly onto transfer trusses #1 and #2,
and/or the east transfer girder. Damage and loading on these floors and transfer components
would generate lateral forces which would cause the failure of the remaining core columns.
The horizontal progression requires further analysis and investigation, but observations
indicate that the remaining core columns appeared to fail almost simultaneously,
approximately 5 second after the east penthouse failed.
It's the "core columns appeared to fail almost simultaneously" that the document itself does not explain. The document makes no attempt at a scientific analysis of the collapse, relying instead entirely upon supposition with words like "may", "could" and "appears". Indeed, in its references, the NIST report relies upon the FEMA report which, as we all know, could not construct a probable or even a plausible collapse hypothesis for WTC 7.
Therefore, this report's collapse scenarios are fancy "scientific" speculation.
I think the damage to the southwest corner is a pure red herring. The NIST draws no real connection to that damaged portion and logic indicates that if the southwest corner caused the collapse, then the collapse should have initiated in the *west* side of the building, not the east side. That would be due to the force known as gravity! Further, this is unlikely because figures L-22a and L-22b show that the damage extends to floor 8 so the pictures imply that the southwest corner beneath 8 was not damaged. This west corner was the most structurally sound section of the building, compared to the ramp and atrium filled east and south sides so it is, again, unlikely to be the source of collapse. Figure L-30 shows the NIST's best guess as to the location of collapse initiation...it's nowhere near the west side!
So, why should the 9/11 "Truth" movement focus on a southwest corner which the NIST itself correctly disregards?