I’ll now reply to charlienneb’s review of the section on WTC 7 in Richard Gage’s powerpoint presentation.
In my quotes from charlienneb’s review below, I’ll add links to the specific slides he’s talking about. (Note: Some of the slides contain streaming video. Normally I do not link to streaming video here. Please do NOT link to streaming video in comments, as per my comment policy.)
Slide 12 Compares pictures of concrete strucures to collapse of the Twin Tower and WTC7
Do you know of any examples of collapses of steel-frame (or at the very least steel-reinforced) buildings, especially skyscrapers, other than the partial collapse of the Windsor building? I agree that steel-frame buildings would be a more relevant comparison. But, as far as I am aware, there aren’t any other examples of total skyscraper collapses besides WTC 1 and 2.
Slide 14 The Oslo demotlion video (already discussed) with the caption “Fires don’t do this to buidings” (already discussed).
I don’t recall a discussion about the caption here. Did you copy and paste your review from someplace else where you did talk about it? If so, could you please provide a link to that discussion?
Slide 15 Characterisics of controlled demoltion diagram Many errors, dealt with in subsequent slides.
Slide 18 Suggests WTC7 had “only a few small fires”. Completely at odds with firefighter testimony.
Indeed, as I’ve already noted elsewhere on my blog (e.g. in Straight-down collapse of WTC 7 – what do “debunkers” say?), it seems to me that many people in the 9/11 Truth movement have underestimated the extent of fires in WTC 7, probably because most of the photos were taken from the north side, whereas the fires were mainly on the south and east side. Ditto regarding the structural damage due to debris from WTC 1.
BUt, to me, all of this extremely asymmetrical fire and damage only underscores the unlikelihood of WTC 7 falling down without more of a tilt to the south than there was.
Slide 19 Suggests WTC7 did not fall towards it’s damaged side – it did.
Yep it did lean slightly toward the south, which should be noted. But, to me, the big question is why it didn’t lean a whole lot more – as did, for example, the top part of WTC 2.
Slide 30 Suggests symmetrical collapse of WTC7 – it wasn’t symmetrical.
Not quite, but pretty darned close. Closer than some known controlled demolitions, even. But, yes, it would be more precise to say “almost perfectly symmetrical” rather than just “symmetrical.”
Anyhow, I didn’t find this in slide 30. Perhaps you meant Slide 20?
Slide 23 Suggests all colummns failed simutaneously and WTC7 fell in 6.5 seconds. They did not and it fell in around 16 seconds.
The final global collapse did indeed take 6.5 seconds, did it not? Yes, the core columns failed earlier, during the 10 seconds or so before the global collapse. Anyhow, given the almost-perfect symmetry of the global collapse, it does indeed seem that all or most of the perimeter columns (other than ones previously damaged) failed at the same time. Would you not agree?
Slide 27 Audio of emergency worker describing fall of WTC7. He could just as easily be describing the natural collapse of 7, rather than a demoiltion. The audio ends before emergency worker has finished speaking. Why?
Indeed the testimony is perhaps ambiguous. How would you differentiate, in terms of sound, between actual explosions and natural collapse phenomena interpreted as explosions?
Slide 28 Video in which Craig Bartmer says he was real close to building 7 when it collapsed and had to run away from it when it collapsed. Why? A collapse zone had been set up around 7 much earlier.
Good question, which should be checked into. The same question should be asked about the testimony of Kevin McPadden, which I’ve had questions about on other grounds. Is it possible that a few people might have been sent back into the collapse zone in order to rescue other people there?
Slide 30 Headline of a story in the New York Times from November 29th, 2001: “Engineers baffled over collapse of 7 WTC”.
I think something up to date would be more appropriate, but we can all pick and choose our own quotes. Here are mine from the same article cited by Gage:
The building had suffered mightily from the fire that raged in it, and it had been wounded by the flying beams falling off the towers.
One tank holding 6,000 gallons of fuel was in the building to provide power to the command bunker on the 23rd floor. Another set of four tanks holding as much as 36,000 gallons were just below ground on the building’s southwest side for generators that served some of the other tenants.
Engineers and other experts have already uncovered evidence at the collapse site suggesting that some type of fuel played a significant role in the building’s demise
Still, experts concede, in a hellish day, 7 World Trade might have sustained structural injuries never envisioned in fire codes.
Any structure anywhere in the world, if you put it in these conditions, it will not stand,” Mr. Marcus said. “The buildings are not designed to be a torch.”
It would be good to specify what the engineers did find “baffling” about the collapse, as mentioned in the headline, besides just the sheer unusualness of a steel-frame building collapsing because of a fire. And it would be good to name some of the specific engineers who found it baffling (if these engineers aren’t named elsewhere in the slideshow), rather than just referring to anonymous “experts.”
Slide 32-35 Pictures of buildings on fire as evidence that fires don’t cause collapse. No details of of their construction method or whether the fires were fought (WTC7 fires were not fought). The much used Windsor building is noteably absent, as the Truth Movement has finally cottoned on to the fact that the steel portion of this building did indeed collapse.
Jim Hoffman has a page about the Windsor building fire. Anyhow, this was only a partial collapse. Do you know of any instances of total collapse of steel-frame buildings (especially skyscrapers) due to fire?
I do think it’s legitimate to say that collapses of steel frame skyscrapers due to fire are extremely rare and unlikely. (See Jim Hoffman’s page about Other Skyscraper Fires.) But I agree that it’s an overstatement to suggest that they are outright impossible. After all, if they were not even theoretically possible, then why even bother with fireproofing?
Slide 36. A picture of small fire at WTC7. Tell that to a firefighter who was there.
The slide does mention at least the possibility of “severe fires” on the other side of the building, though it may come across as overstating doubt about their existence. In any case, it is clear that the fires, even if much greater on the south side, can’t possibly be as massive as the fires shown in the other slides, which engulfed entire buildings. The slide also mentions another important point, namely the asymmetricality of the fires.
Slide 37 More pictures of collapsed buildings. No details of construction method nor cause of collapse.
Actually, this slide does mention that the collapses shown here are due to earthquakes. It should be admitted here that earthquakes are more likely to cause toppling, and more extreme toppling, than other kinds of natural collapses, due to the lateral shaking.
On the other hand, it seems to me that many official-theory defenders have overstated the likelihood that a steel-frame skyscraper could collapse straight down with little or no leaning. The top part of WTC 2 is an obvious counterexample.
I would suggest the 2001 Fire Engineering article which I quote in WTC 1 and 2: Focus on the need for a new investigation in my post Demolition of WTC: Let’s not overstate the case, please.
I would also suggest the news stories quoted on Jim Hoffman’s page about WTC Steel Removal.
1) Complaint that WTC7 is ignored in the 9/11 Commission report. The 9/11 Comission report was never meant to be an analysis of building collapses – that task is NIST’s. What should they have said in the report? If they said ”analysis of the collapse of building 7 has been tasked to NIST” would Gage be happier?
The 9/11 Commission, which was supposed to have been independent of the Bush administration (but wasn’t really), should have included a scientific panel. The problem with merely leaving all the technical stuff entirely up to NIST is that NIST is a part of the executive branch of the government, hence has a conflict of interest in investigating even the possibility of negligence or even incompetence, let alone complicity, by high-ranking officials in the Bush administration. The 9/11 Commission, on the other hand, worked directly under Congress, which is supposed to act as a check and balance on the power of the executive branch, but which, alas, has all too often failed to do so.
This objection should be clarified in Gage’s presentation. The 9/11 Commission is worth mentioning, but, since the 9/11 Commission apparently did not include a scientific panel, it is probably best discussed briefly in a separate section, not as part of the discussion of how the buildings were destroyed.
2) Complaint that ARA Associates have been asked by NIST to analyse floors 8 to 46 only and claims this is because analysis of floors 1-7 and 47 will yield evidence of a controlled demoltion.
I would suggest making this a question (and only a very tentative question) rather than a statement.
NIST broke the analysis up in this manner because floors 8-46 are of a homogeneouse construction design. Floors 1-7 and 47 are of different design. NIST themselves will analyse these floors. I guess we can add the 200 or so scientists and engineers to the vast number of people involved in the conpiracy.
I don’t think it likely that all those NIST scientists are in on any criminal plot. The number of knowing perpetrators would need to be have been kept quite small.
It might be interesting to look at how the work was divided up amongst those people who did look at Floors 1-7 and 47. Are there, for example, any parts of that investigation where access to key evidence has been suspiciously limited to only a very few people? That’s a question worth exploring, to which I don’t know the answer.
3) Quoted newspaper headlines of Max Cleland’s resignation from 9/11 commission. Gage seems to be intimating that Cleland’s resignation is connected to 1) and 2) above. This is incorrect and dishonest.
As I said earlier, I think it would be a good idea to discuss the 9/11 Commission Report briefly in a separate section. Then there would be no such intimation.
Slide 49 Claim that building 7 fell at freefall speed in 6.5 seconds. It did not.
Again the global collapse took 6.5 seconds. Indeed that’s not exactly free-fall, but close. The question is whether it is too close for a natural collapse.
Slide 51 Demolition expert Danny Jowenko confirms WTC7 controlled demolition by merley looking at a video. No explantion of how the building was rigged or the absence of loud demolition charges. Looking forward to the Twin Towers section where Danny Jowenko will appear confirming his belief that the towers were not a controlled demolition. (Oh dear, Jowenko is absent from that section).
If indeed you’re correct about Jowenko’s views on the Twin Towers (something that should be checked), then, for the sake of accurately representing Jowenko’s views, it would be good for Richard Gage’s slideshow to mention that Jowenko does not think likewise of the Twin Towers. But, instead of putting this in the section on the Twin Towers, it would suffice to add a brief, small-print parenthetical note to the above-mentioned slide, along the lines of “(Jowenko does not believe the same about the Twin Towers, whose destruction did not as closely resemble a standard controlled demolition.)”
Slide 52 Expert Hugo Bachmann gives opinion that WTC7 was probaby controlled demolition. A link to anything where Bachmann explains his reasoning would be good.
Indeed that would be highly desirable.
Slide 53. Two videos compared side by side. One of WTC7 and one of a controlled demolition. Zoom in on “squibs.” The “squibs” on WTC7 are clearly material attached to the building and not demolition “squibs.”
“Attached to” the building??? Looks to me like stuff is flying away. Could you please clarify your objection here, e.g. by explaining what you mean by “attached”?
Slides 55-59 Series of slides where molten metal is conflated with molten steel.
Indeed the question of whether and to what extent we can be sure that the molten metal is steel (or iron) should be explicitly addressed, at least briefly. Some witnesses reported seeing a white hot molten metal, which indeed could have been steel (or another iron alloy). I don’t recall offhand whether Gage’s presentation contains any mention of the iron-alloy spherules and the “meteorites” (as discussed by Steven Jones), but, if it doesn’t, it should, since these are stronger evidence than just the testimonies alone.
The photogram in slide 57 shows gound zero hotspots at a maximum of around 1377 degrees Fahrenheit – greater than the temperature at which, for example, aluminum and zinc melt, but nowhere near enough to melt steel.
The temperatures further down could have been much higher than the temperatures on the surface. Thus the temperatures of the GZ hot spots are not inconsistent with the presence of molten iron/steel further down. Of course they don’t prove that the temperatures were hot enough further down, but they are not inconsistent with that claim.
There is a highly dubious video clip in slide 59, where the speaker is abruptly cut of after he utters the word “molten”. I suspect that the source of the video clip would be enlightening as to what Gage is trying to do here.
The team responsible for putting together Gage’s presentation should look into this.
Slides 60-65 Deal with foreknowledge of collapse. Yes, indeed the firefighter knew it would collapse. Their observations at the scene told them as much. BBC foreknowledge – add the BBC to the vast army of conspirators.
Indeed there’s nothing suspicious about the “foreknowledge,” as I’ve noted in past posts. (See Straight-down collapse of WTC 7 – what do “debunkers” say? and the section “Foreknowledge” by NYC officials – a bad argument in my post Demolition of WTC: Let’s not overstate the case, please.)
To me, what’s suspicious about WTC 7 is not the mere fact that it collapsed, but the way it collapsed. What I’m inclined to believe is that whoever demolished it deliberately waited a plausible amount of time for a possibly “natural” collapse, and then demolished the building in such a way as to ensure that it was indeed thoroughly destroyed.
More about this in future posts.
To Richard Gage, if you’re reading this: Please see also this comment by “patslc” (who I think is Pat Curley) and my reply immediately beneath it. You might also be interested in my other posts about WTC 7.
P.S., 11/29/2007: In case this isn’t clear to all readers, I should mention that, although I agree, to at least some extent, with some of charlieneb’s specific criticisms, I basically support Gage’s work. Certainly I support Gage’s aim, which is to attract architects, engineers, and scientists into the 9/11 Truth movement. Only thus can we develop a more solid case as far as the scientific matters are concerned. His presentation might fulfill that aim better than it is doing already, and perhaps attract more structural engineers in particular, if it were to incorporate the improvements suggested above.
P.S., 12/7/2007: Richard Gage has made numerous changes to his slideshow in response to email from me. The changes affect even the numbering of the slides, so that many of the links above are out-of-date.