Over the next week or two I plan to write a series of posts about WTC 7, culminating in the promised detailed explanation of why I think WTC 7’s collapse most likely wasn’t purely “natural,” i.e. why I think it most likely wasn’t caused just by debris damage plus subseequent (non-arson) fires. But first, in this and the next few posts, I’ll look at the official reports plus some other stuff that various defenders of the official story have asked me to read.
I’m now studying both of the following:
- Appendix L – Interim Report on WTC 7 (PDF) in NIST’s June 2004 Progress Report
- Chapter 5 (PDF) of the FEMA report
Both these reports include time lines of events leading up to the collapse of WTC 7, starting with what happened to the Twin Towers. Both reports, especially the NIST interim report, contain photos and summaries of witness observations of structural damage to WTC 7 and subsequent fires. It would be nice if the witnesses were actually named, quoted, and sourced. Hopefully that will be done in NIST’s final report on WTC 7?
I notice something very weird. In neither the FEMA report nor the interim NIST report have I found any mention of any of the pre-collapse observations that led fire fighters to conclude, a few hours before collapse, that WTC 7 was unstable and likely to collapse soon. According to this interview with Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden, from the April 2002 Firehouse Magazine:
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7; did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back
Hayden is also quoted as saying:
By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
What sorts of movements, if any, were observed via the transit instrument during the three hours before collapse? If indeed WTC 7 collapsed naturally, one would think these observations would be highly relevant to any analysis of the collapse.
Another, closely related, also very strange thing: Near the bottom of this page about WTC 7 on the website of one very vehement defender of the OCT, there is a video which is introduced as follows: “Here is a first responder with Building 7 in the background during an interview. Note the frustration in his voice because he can’t do anything for the building.” Then, just below the video, there’s the following quote:
First responder: “You see where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It’s definitely coming down. There’s no way to stop it. Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it already – the structural integrity is just not there in the building. It’s tough, it’s.. it’s.. You know we can handle just about anything, this is beyond…
I, for one, am very curious to know more about this “leaning.” When did the building start leaning, and how far, and, most importantly, in what direction? (I would guess south, or maybe southwest or southeast, but it would be nice to confirm this.)
But there is no mention, in either the FEMA report or the preliminary NIST report, of any such leaning or tilting before collapse. Why not? Again, one would think that this information would be exceedingly relevant to an analysis of the collapse. Surely it would yield some good clues as to what, if anything, was failing inside the building.
Speaking of leaning, I find no mention, in either the FEMA report or the prelim NIST report, of how far and in what direction the building was leaning during collapse, either. I would think that that would provide some important clues too.
Of course, I suppose it’s possible that the folks at NIST just weren’t aware of these pieces of information when they wrote the 2004 interim report. Maybe someone should email them and make sure they are aware of these things now?
I’m not sure, though, whether this information would make NIST’s job easier or harder. Somehow, I suspect the latter….