911 Real Truth

Unchecked Fires Exposed a Critical Design Defect in WTC7 that Lead to its Progressive Collapse: NIST Report

Sat, 11 Sep 2010 20:43:32 -0400

In a nutshell ☝️ (report p. 22)

HOW DID WTC 7 FALL?

Diagram 1 – Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures.

This article gives a rare, two sentence answer, which I’ve interspersed with some more explanations:

“The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand [NP: this “thermal expansion” was an exposed weakness of the construction or materials], leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail [NP: this was the second majorly exposed weakness, an Achilles heel apparently for this building (see below)]. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse [NP: this one column’s collapse triggered two adjacent columns to collapse, which left the entire East side of the building without any interior support, so the dominoes toppled thereafter] of the entire building.”

NIST source

Was the collapse of WTC 7 a unique and unexpected event? Yes. But man-made structures have been failing expectations since the Tower of Babel. There were indeed a couple of major design defects in the structure of WTC 7 that were exposed by the uncontrolled fires that day: One was Long-span floor systems, on which see the section: “What improvements to building safety [have been learned] … ” to thermal expansion. Secondly, it was found that there were key columns in this structure which, if they failed, would lead to a progressive collapse of the whole structure (which is certainly a design defect as stated below).

Look at the diagram below at the left (East) side of the picture and locate support column 79, as well as columns 80 and 81 behind it (South of it). NIST’s conclusion is that the floor in the vicinity of that ‘loner’ column 79 collapsed at the 13th floor, and that this triggered a series of floor collapses below it down to the 5th floor. As NIST states: “This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories. The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building’s east penthouse [at the top of the building].”

This is not just some arbitrary description. Any casual viewing of the tower’s collapse reveals that a major fault or ‘kink’ travelled all the way up the building, right in the vicinity of column 79. Progressive collapse events continued from that point on.

“NIST studies have shown that because of the large floor areas, the failure of just one (key) column on any one of the lower floors would cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section would come down. (NIST, S. Shyam Sunder lecture) This single-column’s failure initiating progressive collapse is a design defect noncompliant with the NYC codes. The buckling of two or more of these three key columns (79, 80, and 81) would have removed support for all columns directly above, putting all upper floors in immediate longspan suspension with eventual collapse. The breaking of the widows on the east side of the north face simultaneously with the buckling of the roof shed was evidence of this tension as the north wall was pulled and leaned in.” (source)

Does this really look like a controlled demolotion?!

The video of the collapse we’re all used to seeing is always shared as if it somehow strongly supports that a controlled demolotion occured. I get it: It’s a stunning event, and untrained eyes (most of ours, mine included) don’t recognize the difference. Adding to this is that once the entire structural collapse began, the lowest floors we can see is between floors 30-40, so we are most definitely not seeing the whole thing. It again makes it easy to think the whole building just collapsed from the floor level like you would expect to see in controlled demolotions. But in fact, when we focus on the momentus events that occured many seconds prior to global collapse, we can see that this looks nothing like a controlled demolition! (Ok, I’m no expert either, but I don’t think this is the common way to demolotion buildings!)

The video clearly shows what the NIST report finding states: that column 79, or at least in that general vicinity, first collapsed many seconds before a progressive collapse began to propogate. It’s also obvious, now that you’re looking for it, that a downward kink forms in the vertical area of that initial collapse, which propogates vertically across the whole building, which strongly illustrates that a collapse of support pillars in that part of the building had occured. According to NIST’s reconstruction, at this point (after the penthouse sank out of view), the entire interior of the east quarter of the building had completely collapsed (the penthouse fell because everything under it fell).

“The exterior facade on the east quarter of the building was just a hollow shell” (cited from the full report referenced above, page 22 (PDF page 64)).

But what about that explosion sound? Though I am of course not qualified to give an engineer’s answer, this seems to fit the NIST reconstruction nicely. Namely, floor 13 fell within the vicinity of Column 79; that collapse caused the progressive collapse of the floors below it on down to floor 5 (which was a much stronger floor, which is why it did not give). And thus we have significant portions of 8 floors collapsing – is that not going to cause an explosion? This must be emphasized. Would not the objectors claim that the NIST proposed reconstruction is clearly bogus, if they were to claim that major portions of 8 floors collapsed, 8 FLOORS!, but that this didn’t cause an explosion to be heard? The collapse of these floors was immediately followed by the buckling of column 79, which led to the collapse of columns 80 and 81 (this is the essense of a progressive collapse, where one dominoe’s fall causes the next dominoe to fall, and so on). “The downward movement of Column 79 led to the observed kink in the east penthouse, and its subsequent descent” (NCSTAR 1A, p. 22).

Undamaged? Minor office fires?

Here are some snapshots of the ‘undamaged’ and ’not hit by a plane’ World Trade Tower 7. Read the firefighter interviews to hear it in their own words, which thoroughly corroborates that the building was actually quite damaged, and that they were even fearful it too would collapse. If it had been designed better it shouldn’t have been in danger of collapse, but…

Firemen On Scene Thought WTC 7 Was Coming Down: Interviews

Sat, 11 Sep 2010 20:43:32 -0400

It (WTC7) had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn’t lose any more people… ~ Chief of the NYC Fire Department Dan Nigro

The following extracts paint a vivid and dire picture concerning the fate of WTC 7 as the firemen assessed it.

A short note first on where I got these interviews:

On the New York Times web site is posted a PDF file recording an interview, conducted only months after 9/11, with a certain Fire Chief (the initial link may have been found via Mark Roberts), but I quickly discovered that this file was one of hundreds of such official interviews that had been made with fire-fighters and other rescue responders in the months after 9/11. With some playing around, I was able to download an entire 407 such PDF interviews. The first is named: 9110100.PDF, and the last is named 9110511.PDF (all the rest are in numerical order … 9110111.PDF, 9110112.PDF etc.). These interviews are all titled: “WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW,” and they then give the name of the interviewee, such as: “DEPUTY CHIEF HOWARD HILL” (9110311.PDF), and then: “Interview Date: December 10, 2001.” This zip file contains a folder with all the (PDF format) interviews I found that talked of WTC7 (they always say something like 7 World Trade Center so it was easy to search on this). It is quite fascinating to see that the assessment of expert firefighters on this day was that they were expecting WTC7 to fall.

Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

Full Interview (pg. 11)

The north end bridge had collapsed on the street, blocking the whole street, and we were just – there were units all over the place. People were all over the place. I didn’t know who they were. Because at the time we had a problem with as far as determining who was who, because equipment was being borrowed from all firehouses. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. There was concern. I had gone up to take a look at it, because I knew that the telephone company building, which is 140 West Street, was next to 7 World Trade Center, and there was a concern that if 7 World Trade came down, what would happen to this building? We went in there, we checked it out. There were some people in there. We made them evacuate and I went in the back to see what was happening. The fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. I went back and I reminded whoever the…

Captain Anthony Varriale

Full Interview (pg. 6)

At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren’t aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center. At that time, some of my members went with another officer, I don’t remember who it was, to try and search the collapse of – I guess…

Dan Nigro, Chief of the Department

Interview (pg. 10)

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn’t lose any more people.

The following citation is about the twin towers, not WTC 7, but it is instructional none the less about how unrealistic it is to put out multiple story fires in high-rises:

(pg 14) I stated to Chief Ganci on the way there that I didn’t believe we could extinguish the fire. Q. That was based on what? A. The number of floors I think. The volume of fire on the number of floors. To my recollection, we had never put out a fire that involved that many floors in a high rise building in this city before. I think more or less the direction of - in both towers ended up, evacuation was the main, the initial concern. Get as many people out of the building as we could.

Captain Ray Goldbach

Interview (pg. 14)

We walked all the way back down to Vesey Street. There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn’t feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.

Q. It was on fire, correct, Captain?

A. Yes, it was on fire at that time. Then they said it suffered some form of structural damage. These things were going on at the same time. The fact that we thought we found Ganci and Feehan and his place at 7 World Trade Center. Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way.

Firefigher Kevin Martin

Interview (pg. 7)

Q. Right. That’s North End Avenue and Vesey Street and that’s some distance from the collapse?

A. Yes, there was a lot of cars on fire there. There was scaffolding around the phone company. That was on fire. There was a section of the building that was knocked out, a beam, a steel girder went through the side of it. 7 World Trade Center was on fire. So we were working right in here with the hose line –

Firefigher Brian Fitzpatrick

Interview (pg. 8)

… the West Side Highway because there was an imminent collapse on 7 World Trade, and it did collapse. As far as other companies, I don’t know. I knew from sticking my head out the window going down that we were by 35 and 40. I think they were ahead of us when we pulled in. I’m sorry. 35 Truck and I can’t remember the engine down there, 25, 74, I think 47 was there.

Lieutenant Anthony Mancusco

Interview (pg. 5)

Again, after that came down we knew we had all our members. We went back to some of the rubble from that and we had worked in that area for a short time and then we were told to keep feeding a couple of the tower ladders they had in front of 6 World Trade. They just didn’t want anybody operating there. I think they were fearing about 7 World Trade coming down. So then we kept augmenting tower ladders and staying away from that collapse area.

Assistant Chief Harold Meyers

Interview (pg. 4)

A. Yes, he did. Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured. Also, to do what I could while up at the site to organize some sort of command or control. Q. Considering handy talkie communications, you could only comment obviously following the seconds collapse because before that you were not on the scene.

Lieutenat Rudolf Weindler

Interview (pg. 5)

The next thing I did was we saw a fire starting to show at windows in 7 World Trade Center, decided to go in and try and see if there was anybody in the building and/or put out the fires,and we did a search from floor to floor of 7 World Trade Center passing fire on floors 3, 7, 9. The standpipes had no water. We tried to extinguish a few fires with cans. When we got to 11, there was just too much smoke and we decided that, without water, if we went any higher, we’d be on fool’s mission. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. At that point there were fires in, I guess, all of the smaller buildings in the Trade Center complex. The only place we had any water was in the Church Street Post Office, where we hooked up some house lines. They were just a bunch of firemen, some…

Implosionworld’s Powerful Q&A: A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint

Sat, 11 Sep 2010 20:43:32 -0400

This is one of the best articles to read. It deals with nine assertions that claim evidence for the use of controlled demolitions in the collapse of the three WTC towers on September 11. The author, Brent Blanchard, is [was] the “Senior Editor for Implosionworld.com (http://www.implosionworld.com/) and Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. (www.protectservices.com)." Protec is according to their report one of the largest and / or most experienced explosive demolition companies in the world, and they furthermore actually had teams working in Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9/11 with their own independent field seismographs running all through this day.

FULL REPORT

— Synopsis Questions and Answers —

ASSERTION #1: “The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”

PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t. It’s the “where.”

ASSERTION #2: “But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”

PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance.

ASSERTION #3: “But explosive charges (aka plumes, squibs, etc.) can clearly be seen shooting from several floors just prior to collapse.”

PROTEC COMMENT: No, air and debris can be seen pushing violently outward, which is a natural and predictable effect of rapid structural collapse.

ASSERTION #4: “Several credible eyewitnesses are adamant that they heard explosions in or near the towers.”

PROTEC COMMENT: Maybe they did hear loud noises that sounded to them like explosions, but such statements do nothing to refute scientific evidence that explosives were not used.

ASSERTION #5: “An explosive other than conventional dynamite or RDX was used… such as thermite, which gets very hot and can basically ‘melt’ steel. This can be proven by photographs of molten steel taken at Ground Zero, the temperature and duration of underground fires, and comments made by rescue workers.”

PROTEC COMMENT: We have come across no evidence to support this claim.

ASSERTION #6: “Debris removed from Ground Zero – particularly the large steel columns from towers #1 and 2 – were quickly shipped overseas to prevent independent examination or scrutiny.”

PROTEC COMMENT: Not according to those who handled the steel.

ASSERTION #7: “WTC 7 was intentionally ‘pulled down’ with explosives. No airplane hit it, and the building owner himself was quoted as saying he made a decision to ‘pull it’.”

PROTEC COMMENT: This scenario is extremely unlikely for many reasons.

ASSERTION #8: “A steel-framed building has never collapsed due to fire, yet three steel buildings collapsed on one day…therefore explosives must have been responsible.”

PROTEC COMMENT: No, actually it means three steel buildings collapsed due to fire (and violent external forces) on one day.

ASSERTION #9: “Anyone denying that explosives were used is intentionally ignoring or dismissing evidence that doesn’t suit their conclusion.”

PROTEC COMMENT: Please…if anyone knows of specific physical evidence relating to explosives being used in any manner on the Ground Zero site, bring it to our attention.