Monday, September 25, 2017

PART 1: BEYOND MISINFORMATION:What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7

Image result for images of WTC 5 on September 21, 2001.
Review Committee 
Sarah Chaplin, Architect and Urban Development Consultant, Former Head of School of Architecture and Landscape, Kingston University, London 
Dr. Mohibullah Durrani, Professor of Engineering and Physics, Montgomery College, Maryland 
Richard Gage, AIA, Founder and CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth 
Dr. Robert Korol, Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Ontario 
Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Retired Professor of Religious Studies and Peace Studies, McMaster University, Ontario Robert McCoy, Architect 
Dr. Oswald Rendon-Herrero, P.E., Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Mississippi State University 
Author 
Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth 
Technical Editor 
Chris Sarns 
Contributing Writers 
Craig McKee 
Chris Sarns 
Andrew Steele 
BEYOND MISINFORMATION 
What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth 
2342 Shattuck Avenue Suite 189 Berkeley, CA 94704
Introduction
What caused the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on September 11, 2001? More than a decade later, this question continues to be discussed by many people around the world.
According to the official explanation, the World Trade Center Twin Towers (W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2) collapsed due to damage from airplane impacts and ensuing fires, while World Trade Center Building 7 (W.T.C 7), a 47-story skyscraper also in the World Trade Center complex, collapsed completely and symmetrically into its own footprint due to office fires ignited by debris from the earlier collapse of W.T.C 1. Though few people have studied it closely, a majority of the public, including most architects, engineers, and scientists, accept the official explanation.(1) 

Much of the public, however, including a considerable number of architects, engineers, and scientists, do not accept the official explanation.(2)(3) Among those who reject it, the most common explanation is that W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7 were destroyed in a procedure known as “controlled demolition,” whereby carefully placed explosives or other devices are detonated to bring down a structure in a desired manner. September 11, 2001, aside, every total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building in history has been caused by controlled demolition. 

According to this second explanation, the demolition of W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7 would need to have been prepared before September 11, 2001, by demolition experts who had unrestricted access to the buildings. This explanation also implies that the demolition was planned in coordination with the other attacks of that day. Most importantly, if the goal were to make it appear that the airplanes had caused the destruction of the buildings, it could not be left to chance that airplanes would successfully crash into W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2. This explanation, therefore, contradicts the official account of 9/11. 

What Does Science Say? 
The purpose of this booklet is to provide a careful examination of these competing explanations — which we will refer to as “hypotheses” from this point forward — and a comprehensive overview of the available evidence, so that readers can begin to evaluate which of the two hypotheses is more consistent with the evidence. Because this booklet only skims the surface of this subject, readers are strongly encouraged to study the official reports and the papers referenced herein before reaching their own conclusions. 

The position taken in the following chapters is that very little of the evidence can be explained by the hypothesis of fire-induced failure and that all of it can be explained by the hypothesis of controlled demolition. Nonetheless, this booklet will make the best attempt to describe how the authors of the official reports have explained the evidence according to their hypothesis. In many cases, however, we will find that the authors of the official reports denied or ignored the available evidence. 

In the end, the goal is to move our collective understanding of the World Trade Center’s destruction beyond misinformation so that we as a society may arrive at an accurate account of one of the most important events in our recent history.
1
Formulating a Hypothesis This chapter provides a starting point from which to examine the competing hypotheses of fire-induced failure and controlled demolition. First, it will review the history of high-rise building fires and failures. Then it will examine the features that distinguish fire-induced failure and controlled demolition. Before and after photos of World Trade Center Building 7. 
Related image
Image result for image of Before and after photos of World Trade Center Building 7.
One principle of the scientific method is especially relevant in the early stage of an investigation when data is being gathered and a hypothesis is being formulated. “Unprecedented causes should not, without good reasons, be posited to explain familiar occurrences,” observes David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus of Philosophy of Religion and Theology who has written extensively about the philosophy of science and about the events of September 11, 2001. “We properly assume, unless there is extraordinary evidence to the contrary, that each instance of a familiar occurrence was produced by the same causal factors that brought about the previous instances.”(1) 

With that principle in mind, we will review the history of high-rise building fires and failures to help us establish what should be considered, or should have been considered, the most likely hypothesis for the destruction of W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7. 

High-Rise Building Fires and Failures 
The history of steel-framed high-rise buildings spans about 100 years. Setting aside the events of September 11, 2001, every total collapse of a steel framed high-rise building during that period of time has been caused by controlled demolition. In comparison, fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building, though high-rise building fires occur frequently.

Modern steel-framed high-rises generally endure fires without being structurally compromised because they have fire protection to prevent the steel from heating to the point where it loses a significant amount of its strength. This is usually in the form of gypsum board (drywall), concrete, or sprayed-on insulation. 

To illustrate the performance of steel-framed high rise buildings throughout history, let us first examine the instances in which fires have caused the total or partial collapse of high-rise buildings. 

In 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (N.I.S.T) conducted an international historical survey of fires in multi-story buildings (defined as four or more stories) of all kinds that resulted in total or partial collapse.(2)  From news databases, published literature, and direct inquires with 23 organizations, the survey identified 22 fire-induced collapses between 1970 and 2002. 

Originally, the survey included W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7. However, it was revised in 2008 to remove W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2, because, according to N.I.S.T, their destruction did not result solely from fire, but from a combination of structural damage, dislodged fireproofing, and fire caused by the airplane impacts. However, in this chapter, because fire was reportedly the proximate cause, we will discuss W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 as fire-induced failures. In the chapters ahead, we will examine whether the structural damage and reported dislodging of fireproofing are sufficient reasons to differentiate W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 from other steel-framed high-rise buildings that have experienced fires. 

The results of N.I.S.T’s survey were as follows: 

Partial Collapses Of the 22 fire-induced collapses, 15 were partial collapses, with five of those occurring in buildings that were comparable to W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7 in terms of size or construction (over 20 stories or steel-framed or both). The five are: 

■ One New York Plaza, a 50-story steel-framed building that experienced local connection failures resulting in filler beams on the 33rd and 34th floors dropping onto their supporting girders; 

■ Alexis Nihon Plaza, a 15-story steel-framed building in Montreal, Canada, that experienced a partial collapse of its 11th floor; 
Image result for images of WTC 5 on September 11, 2001.
■ W.T.C 5, a nine-story steel-framed building in the W.T.C complex that experienced partial collapses of four floors and two bays on September 11, 2001; 

■ The Jackson Street Apartments, a 21-story reinforced concrete building in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, that experienced the partial collapse of a floor/ceiling assembly; and 

■ C.E.S.P 2, a 21-story reinforced concrete building in Sao Paulo, Brazil, that experienced a substantial partial collapse of its central core. 

The remaining 10 partial collapses occurred in buildings with eight or fewer stories and constructed of materials including concrete, brick, wood, or masonry with cast iron. None were steel-framed. 

Total Collapses 
Of the 22 fire-induced collapses, seven of them (including W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7) were total collapses. W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7 stand out from the other four buildings, which ranged from four stories to nine stories and were made of concrete, wood, or unknown materials. 

In summary, the survey identified four other documented instances in which fires caused the total collapse of a multi-story building. None were steel framed and the tallest was nine stories. Fifteen buildings suffered partial fire-induced collapse, but only five of them occurred in buildings that were over 20 stories and/or steel-framed. The survey concluded, “A fire-induced collapse in a multi-story building can be classified as a low-frequency, high-consequence event.” 
Image result for images of The Windsor Tower in Madrid, 2005.
The Windsor Tower in Madrid, 2005.
Image result for images of The Windsor Tower in Madrid, 2005.
The Windsor Tower after having burned for almost 24 hours.
Other notable fire-induced collapses have occurred since 2002. In 2005, the 29-story Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain, constructed of steel exterior columns and reinforced concrete core columns, burned for almost 24 hours and suffered a partial collapse, in stages over several hours, of floors where the steel support columns and beams had no fire protection. In 2008, the 13-story Delft University Faculty of Architecture Building in the Netherlands, constructed of reinforced concrete, burned for seven hours and experienced a partial collapse of a 13-story section of the building. Yet there remains no documented instance of a steel-framed high-rise building suffering total collapse from fire, and only a small number have experienced partial collapse. 

Let us now examine the incidence of high-rise building fires that do not cause total or partial collapse. In 2013, the National Fire Protection Association (N.F.P.A) published the most recent edition of its periodic report titled High-Rise Building Fires. According to the report, which defines high-rise buildings as having seven stories or more, there were an estimated 15,400 high-rise building fires in the U.S. annually from 2007 to 2011. Fifty percent of those occurred in buildings typically considered high-rise buildings (that is, with multiple separate floors such as apartments, hotels, facilities that care for the sick, and offices). The incidence in that five-year stretch is similar to the number of fires observed in earlier time periods. 

The N.F.P.A report notes that, by most measures, the risks of fire and of associated losses are lower in high-rise buildings than in other buildings of the same property use. The difference, says the report, can be attributed to the much greater use of fire protection systems and features in high-rise buildings as compared to shorter buildings. 

In terms of buildings that are more comparable to W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7, the report estimates that 1,610 fires occur each year in buildings with 13 or more stories. Since the report does not categorize fires by size, severity, or duration, it is difficult to tell how many of these fires are comparable to the fires in W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7. 

One method of comparison, though, is to identify high-rise building fires that resulted in significant fire damage and property loss. Using those criteria, N.I.S.T’s 2002 historical survey (updated in 2008), referenced above, identified seven major high-rise building fires that did not result in total or partial collapse. Those included: 
Image result for images of One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, PA
■ One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, PA (height: 38 stories; fire duration: 19 hours) 
Image result for images of Mercantile Credit Insurance Building in Basingstoke, United Kingdom
■ Mercantile Credit Insurance Building in Basingstoke, United Kingdom (height: 12 stories; fire duration: unknown) 

■ Broadgate Phase 8 in London, United Kingdom (height: 14 stories; fire duration: 4.5 hours) 
Image result for images of First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles, CA
■ First Interstate Bank in Los Angeles, CA (height: 62 stories; fire duration: 3.5 hours) 
Image result for images of MGM Grand Hotel fire
■ MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas, NV (height: 26 stories; fire duration: 8 hours) 
Image result for images of Joelma Building fire in Sao Paulo, Brazil
■ Joelma Building in Sao Paulo, Brazil (height: 25 stories; fire duration: one hour and 40 minutes) 
Image result for images of Andraus Building fire in Sao Paulo, Brazil
\■ Andraus Building in Sao Paolo, Brazil (height: 31 stories; fire duration: unknown) 
Image result for images from BRE tests in Cardington, United Kingdom.
BRE tests in Cardington, United Kingdom.
The N.I.S.T survey also noted two major fire test programs conducted at the Building Research Establishment (B.R.E) Laboratories in Cardington, United Kingdom. The first series of tests, conducted on a representative eight-story composite steel-framed office building, resulted in significant fire damage but did not result in collapse, even with unprotected steel floors. The second series of tests conducted on a seven-story concrete building also did not result in collapse. 

Given the high frequency of fires in steel-framed high-rise buildings and the low frequency of fire-induced collapses, the probability when a fire occurs in a steel-framed high-rise building that it will result in a partial collapse is extremely low. The probability that it will result in a total collapse appears to be even lower. 

Let us take W.T.C 7 as an example. According to the official explanation, its collapse was due solely to normal office fires and not from structural damage caused by debris. The probability when W.T.C 7 caught fire that it would totally collapse as a result of those normal office fires was exceedingly low. 

The Features of Controlled Demolition 
vs. Fire-Induced Failure 
Let us now move from examining the occurrence of collapse to the manner of collapse produced by controlled demolition and fire-induced failure, respectively. Table 1 on the following page lists several common features that generally distinguish controlled demolitions and fire-induced failures. 

As Table 1 illustrates, the corresponding features of controlled demolition and fire-induced failure are virtually the opposite of each other. Not every controlled demolition exhibits all of the features of controlled demolition listed in Table 1, nor does every fire-induced failure exhibit all of the features of fire-induced failure listed in Table 1. However, there is very little crossover: When a building’s cause of collapse is controlled demolition, the building exhibits virtually none of the features of fire-induced failure. Similarly, when a building suffers a fire-induced failure, it exhibits virtually none of the key features of controlled demolition (with the exception of the four smaller non-steel-framed buildings that N.I.S.T’s 2002/2008 survey identified as having suffered total collapse from fire).

Table 1: 
The Features of Controlled Demolition 
versus Fire-Induced Failure 
                       CONTROLLED DEMOLITION                           The collapse is total, leaving virtually no parts of the building standing.  

The onset of collapse is always sudden. 

The collapse lasts a matter of seconds.  

The collapse typically starts at the base of the building, though they can be engineered as top-down also. 

The building descends symmetrically through what was the path of greatest resistance, though asymmetrical collapses are sometimes engineered on purpose.

The building typically descends to the ground at near free-fall acceleration.  

“Demolition squibs” (isolated explosive ejections) are visible outside the main zone of destruction. Concrete and other materials are sometimes pulverized, resulting in fine dust clouds.  

The building’s steel structure is totally or mostly dismembered. 
     FIRE-INDUCED FAILURE
The collapse is usually partial (always partial in the case of steel-framed buildings), leaving much of the building standing.

The onset of collapse is gradual, with visible building deformations appearing prior to the actual collapse.

The collapse takes place over many minutes or hours. 

The collapse occurs randomly anywhere in the building.Collapse is always asymmetrical. 

The descent of falling portions of the building is slowed or stopped by the lower sections of the building.

Explosions only occur at the location of fires, if at all.

Concrete and other materials are not pulverized. Most of the building’s remaining structure is left intact or in large sections.

The building’s steel structure is left mostly intact, even if heavily damaged.

If we look closely at the five buildings in N.I.S.T’s survey that were over 20 stories or steel-framed or both, and that suffered partial fire-induced collapse, we find that none of them exhibited the features of controlled demolition in Table 1 above. 

One New York Plaza experienced local connection failures resulting in filler beams dropping onto their supporting girders on two floors. 

Alexis Nihon Plaza experienced a partial collapse of its 11th floor, which was arrested by the floor below it. 

W.T.C 5 experienced partial collapses of four floors and two bays. 

The Jackson Street Apartments experienced the partial collapse of a floor/ceiling assembly. 

C.E.S.P 2 experienced a substantial partial collapse of its central core. The degree of deformation prior to collapse is unknown. Other than possibly experiencing little deformation prior to collapse, C.E.S.P 2 exhibited no other feature of controlled demolition. 

In comparison, as we will discuss in the chapters ahead, the destruction of W.T.C 7 exhibited all of the features of controlled demolition listed in Table 1, while W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 exhibited eight out of the nine features listed in the table (the collapse W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 did not start at their bases).

What Is the Most Likely Hypothesis? 
We now have two main observations to help us establish the most likely hypothesis for the destruction of W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7. First, the probability of fire causing the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building is exceedingly low. Such an event has never occurred prior to or since September 11, 2001. On the other hand, every total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building in history has been caused by controlled demolition. Second, fire-induced failures exhibit virtually none of the features of controlled demolition. Yet, as could be seen on the day of September 11, 2001, the destruction of W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7 exhibited nearly all of the features of controlled demolition and none of the features of fire-induced failure. 

If the destruction of W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7 were caused by fire, this would make them the first steel framed high-rise buildings in history to suffer total fire-induced collapse (combined with structural damage from the airplane impacts in the case of W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2). They would also be the first fire-induced collapses to exhibit nearly all of the features of controlled demolition and none of the features of fire-induced collapse. Edward Munyak, a fire protection engineer, puts it this way: “Even one progressive global collapse would have been extraordinary. But to have three occur in one day was just beyond comprehension.” 

Let us revisit the principle introduced at the beginning of this chapter: 

“Unprecedented causes should not, without good reasons, be posited to explain familiar occurrences…. We properly assume, unless there is extraordinary evidence to the contrary, that each instance of a familiar occurrence was produced by the same causal factors that brought about the previous instances.” 

Indeed, we can properly assume, based on the above observations, that the most likely hypothesis for the destruction of W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7 is that it was caused by controlled demolition. Only if there is extraordinary evidence to the contrary should an unprecedented cause be posited. 

In the chapters ahead, we will examine whether that extraordinary evidence to the contrary exists — or not. 

2
The Official Investigations 
Image result for images of a flatbed truck with steel on it from the twin towers
This chapter provides a brief account of the investigations conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (F.E.M.A) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (N.I.S.T) with a focus on how their hypotheses were developed over time. Toward the end are summaries of N.I.S.T’s final “probable collapse sequences,” which are the sequences of events that N.I.S.T claims led to the total collapse of the buildings. Whether the evidence supports the scenarios put forth by N.I.S.T will be discussed in the following chapters.

In the last chapter, we established that the most likely hypothesis for the destruction of W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7 was that it was caused by controlled demolition. Let us now consider a second principle of the scientific method that is relevant in the early stage of an investigation. David Ray Griffin describes it as follows: “When there is a most likely explanation for some phenomenon, the investigation should begin with the hypothesis that this possible explanation is indeed the correct one…. Doing otherwise would suggest that the investigators’ work is being determined by some extra-scientific motive, rather than the simple desire to discover the truth.”(1) With that principle in mind, we will now examine whether investigators started with or ever considered the most likely hypothesis. 

The FEMA Building Performance Study 
“‘It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building,’ said Mr. Hamburger, chief structural engineer for A.B.S Consulting in Oakland, Calif. Upon learning that no bombs had been detonated, ‘I was very surprised.’” 

This quote from Ronald Hamburger appeared in The Wall Street Journal on September 19, 2001. By that time, Hamburger was one of a team of engineers that had been assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers (A.S.C.E) and that would be given authority under F.E.M.A to investigate the World Trade Center destruction. He would also be named “Chapter Leader” for the chapter on W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 in F.E.M.A’s final report. 

How did Ronald Hamburger learn that “no bombs had been detonated?” F.E.M.A’s investigators were not granted access to the site until the week of October 7. Thus, neither he nor anyone else had conducted forensic analysis of the debris, nor had they interviewed eyewitnesses. From a scientific perspective, there was no basis for dis-confirming his initial hypothesis. 

The likely answer is that between September 11 and the time that he was interviewed, the government and the media had put forth an account of the day’s events that was incompatible with his original assessment that the buildings had been brought down with explosives. Certainly, it would seem highly unlikely that Al-Qaeda could have gained access to the buildings and rigged them to be demolished without being detected. Therefore, as Hamburger essentially stated, he ruled out his initial hypothesis when he “learned” to his surprise that the official account did not include explosives being used to bring down the buildings. 
Image result for images of the 911 towers imploding
Ronald Hamburger was not the only expert to rule out this initial hypothesis. On September 11, Van Romero, an explosives expert at New Mexico Tech, told the Albuquerque Journal, “The collapse of the buildings was ‘too methodical’ to be the chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures…. ‘My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse.’” By September 21, Romero changed his opinion after “conversations with structural engineers,” telling his local newspaper, “Certainly, the fire is what caused the building to fail.” 
COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS 
“The Towers were a raging inferno.” 
According to the NIST report: “At any given location, the duration and temperatures near 1,000°C, was about 15 to 20 min. The rest of the time, the temperatures were near 500°C or below…. The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.” 

“The fires melted the steel.” 
Although some experts initially claimed that fires had melted the steel, the hypotheses put forward by FEMA and NIST never involved the steel becoming hot enough to melt. According to NIST, the highest air temperatures reached were 1,000°C (1,832°F), while steel melts at about 1,500°C (2,732°F).
Whatever causes experts like Hamburger and Romero might have initially suspected, within a week after September 11 there was no longer any question that fires had been the ultimate reason for the buildings’ demise. Even the precise mechanisms that triggered the collapses were agreed upon, according to engineer R. Shankar Nair, who would be a contributor to the F.E.M.A investigation. “Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center,” he told the Chicago Tribune on September 19. 

At least that was the case for W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2. W.T.C 7’s collapse, on the other hand, investigators were at a loss to explain. “Engineers and other experts, who quickly came to understand how hurtling airplanes and jet fuel had helped bring down the main towers, were for weeks still stunned by what happened to 7 World Trade Center,” The New York Times reported on November 29. “We know what happened at 1 and 2, but why did 7 come down?” said William Baker, a member of the F.E.M.A team.

With fire-induced failure as its only hypothesis, the F.E.M.A investigation proceeded for the next several months with significant constraints. As New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton wrote: 

The investigation was financed and given its authority by F.E.M.A, with which lead investigator Gene Corley’s team had a shaky relationship from the start. For months after September 11, the investigators…were unable to persuade F.E.M.A to obtain basic data like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed. Bureaucratic restrictions often kept the engineers from interviewing witnesses to the disaster, making forensic inspections at ground zero, or getting crucial information like recorded distress calls from people trapped in the buildings. For reasons that would remain known only to F.E.M.A, the agency refused to let the team appeal to the public for photographs and videos of the towers that could help with the investigation.(2) 

Most detrimental to the team’s ability to conduct forensic analysis was the City’s recycling of the buildings’ steel, which continued despite requests from the investigators — and outcry among the victims’ families and the fire safety community — for the steel to be saved.(3)  Although investigators were eventually granted access to the scrap yards, nearly all of the steel, including most of the steel from the upper floors of W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2, was destroyed before it could be inspected.(4) [The only crime scene in history where evidence was destroyed and law enforcement did not ask why D.C.]

F.E.M.A released its report, titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, on May 1, 2002. As implied in the title, the report did not attempt to provide a definitive explanation for the destruction of each building. Instead, it posited scenarios in general terms while recommending further investigation to definitively determine the exact causes. 
Image result for images of This PBS NOVA animation attempts to illustrate the “pancake theory.”
This PBS NOVA animation attempts to illustrate the “pancake theory.”
F.E.M.A’s scenario for W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 — which reflected common thinking at that time but was later ruled out by N.I.S.T — is what became known as the “pancake theory.” According to this hypothesis, the fires caused the floor trusses to lose their rigidity and sag. As a result of the sagging, the column-to-truss connections failed and the floors collapsed onto the floors below them. This precipitated “an immediate progressive series of floor failures,” which left behind “tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns.” F.E.M.A then stated, “As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed. Perimeter walls of the building seem to have peeled off and fallen directly away from the building face, while portions of the core fell in a somewhat random manner.” F.E.M.A also claimed that the upper sections of the buildings then acted as pile drivers, causing “a wide range of failures in the floors directly at and below the aircraft impact zone,” which progressed all the way down to the base of the buildings. 

Regarding W.T.C 7, F.E.M.A reported that there was “no clear evidence of where or on which floor the initiating failure occurred,” but it put forward a number of “potential scenarios” involving fires on various floors on the east side of the building. Noting that those areas contained “little if any fuel” that would be required to feed fires hot enough and long-lasting enough to weaken the structure, the report suggested “a hypothesis based on potential rather than demonstrated fact” that diesel fuel from the buildings’ emergency generators was the source of fire. Like the “pancake theory,” this hypothesis reflected common thinking at the time but was later ruled out by N.I.S.T. Toward the end of the report, however, F.E.M.A observed: 

The specifics of the fires in W.T.C 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.

Thus, rather than pursuing the most likely hypothesis for W.T.C 7’s destruction, F.E.M.A posited a hypothesis that it found no evidence for; that involved an unprecedented cause; and that it acknowledged had “only a low probability of occurrence.” 

The N.I.S.T Investigation 
Amid a growing sense that the F.E.M.A Building Performance Study was insufficient for the task of conducting a full-scale investigation, N.I.S.T began planning its own investigation in October 2001 to eventually succeed F.E.M.A’s. The N.I.S.T investigation was announced on August 21, 2002, and was scheduled to take 24 months. 

Although a new agency was assuming the task of investigating the World Trade Center destruction, a number of key members of the F.E.M.A Building Performance Study would come to have principal roles in the N.I.S.T investigation. Some of them included: 


Therese McAllister and John Gross, who became Co-Project Leaders of the most important part of the N.I.S.T investigation, “Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis.” McAllister had been the editor of the F.E.M.A Building Performance Study and the Chapter Leader of the report’s introduction. Gross had been a contributing author to the introduction. 

Ronald Hamburger, whose firm was awarded the most important contract related to W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2: a study of the thermal-structural response of the buildings to the fires.Hamburger had been the Chapter Leader of F.E.M.A’s chapter on W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2. As discussed above, Hamburger initially thought that “charges had been placed in the building” but apparently ruled out this hypothesis when he learned it was not compatible with the official account. 

Ramon Gilsanz, whose firm was awarded the most important contract related to W.T.C 7: the development of structural models and collapse hypotheses for W.T.C 7. Gilsanz had been the Chapter Leader of F.E.M.A’s chapter on W.T.C 7. 

In its final plan, released in August 2002, N.I.S.T acknowledged that fire had never caused the total collapse of a high-rise building prior to September 11, 2001. Nonetheless, it pursued its hypothesis confidently, even going so far as to declare it as fact: “The W.T.C Towers and W.T.C 7 are the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fire played a role.” 

N.I.S.T’s first progress report in December 2002 did not discuss hypotheses in any detail. In May 2003, it released a second progress report, which laid out three leading hypotheses for the destruction of W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2. One was F.E.M.A’s “pancake theory” involving the failure of floor connections. Another suggested that the floor connections held strong, which then allowed the sagging floors to pull the exterior columns inward until they buckled. This would become the main initiating mechanism in N.I.S.T’s probable collapse sequence (see Table 2). The third hypothesis posited direct fire-induced column failure. The May 2003 progress report, however, did not explore hypotheses for the destruction of W.T.C 7. 
COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS 
“W.T.C 7 collapsed because of the diesel fuel fires.” 5 
Although this was a leading hypothesis for several years, F.E.M.A and N.I.S.T found no evidence to support it and N.I.S.T eventually ruled it out, stating, “Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of W.T.C 7.” 
“W.T.C 7 collapsed because of a massive, extremely hot fire. It was a raging inferno.” 6 
N.I.S.T concluded that the fires in W.T.C 7 were not unusual or extreme. In its final report it stated: “The fires in W.T.C 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.” The thermal expansion of beams that initiated the collapse occurred “at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in design practice for establishing structural fire resistance ratings.
In June 2004, N.I.S.T released a third, much more extensive progress report containing interim findings and a working hypothesis for the destruction of W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 — and this time W.T.C 7. Although the working hypothesis for W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 described the overall sequence of events from airplane impact to collapse initiation in relatively clear steps, N.I.S.T did not settle on an initiating mechanism or on a location in either building where it might have occurred. In regards to W.T.C 7, N.I.S.T suggested that an initial local failure somewhere below Floor 13, caused by fire and/or structural damage, triggered a column failure and subsequent vertical progression of failures up to the east penthouse. The resulting damage, N.I.S.T hypothesized, set off a horizontal progression of failures across the lower floors, resulting in disproportionate collapse of the entire building. 

N.I.S.T’s working hypothesis for the destruction of W.T.C 7 was further elaborated in a Popular Mechanics article from March 2005, which said: “N.I.S.T researchers now support the working hypothesis that W.T.C 7 was far more compromised by debris than the F.E.M.A report indicated.... N.I.S.T investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse.” 

In April 2005, N.I.S.T announced that its technical work was nearly finished and that a draft report on W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 would be released for public comment in June 2005, followed by the final report in September 2005. N.I.S.T also announced for the first time that its report on W.T.C 7 would be released as a supplement to the other report, with a draft report due in October 2005 and the final report slated for December 2005. This schedule for the W.T.C 7 report was repeated at a public briefing on June 23, 2005. In its April 2005 progress report, N.I.S.T addressed the subject of the controlled demolition hypothesis for the first time — but only in relation to W.T.C 7: “N.I.S.T has seen no evidence that the collapse of W.T.C 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition.” N.I.S.T did not describe what methods it used to search for evidence of controlled demolition. Whether it conducted an adequate search for such evidence will be discussed in later chapters. 

Then, in September 2005, at a three-day technical conference where N.I.S.T released its final report on W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 (see Table 2 for a summary of N.I.S.T’s final probable collapse sequence), it announced that its report on W.T.C 7 would be further postponed, with the technical work being completed in January 2006, the draft report for public comment scheduled for May 2006, and the final report finished in June 2006. 
Table 2: 
Summary of N.I.S.T’s Probable Collapse 
Sequence for W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 

STEP 1: Structural Damage from Airplane Impact The impact of the airplane severed 35 exterior columns and six core columns in W.T.C 1. An additional two exterior columns and three core columns were heavily damaged. In W.T.C 2, the impact of the airplane severed 33 exterior columns and 10 core columns. An additional exterior column and core column were heavily damaged. 

STEP 2: Redistribution of Loads The damage to exterior columns caused their loads to be redistributed mostly to the columns next to the impact zones. Damage to the core columns was distributed mostly to the core columns next to them that were still intact, and to a lesser extent to the exterior columns via the hat truss and floor systems. Additional loading redistribution occurred as some core columns were weakened and thus shortened, redistributing loads to the exterior columns. Loads increased by up to 25% in some areas and decreased by up to 20% in other areas. 

STEP 3: Dislodging of Fireproofing The sprayed-on fireproofing was completely dislodged on all sides of some exterior columns, trusses, core beams, and all the gypsum board was knocked off some core columns over a wide area of multiple floors. According to N.I.S.T, the dislodging of fireproofing was necessary for the collapses to have occurred: “The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires... if the insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” 

STEP 4: Sagging of Thermally Weakened Floors Pulled Exterior Columns Inward Heated floors began to sag and pull the exterior columns inward, though in some areas the floor connections failed rather than pulling on the exterior columns. In W.T.C 1, sagging of floors and inward bowing of exterior columns occurred on the south side from the 95th to the 99th floors. In W.T.C 2, sagging of floors and inward bowing of exterior columns occurred on the east side of the building from the 79th to the 83rd floors. 

STEP 5: Exterior Columns Buckled, Causing Instability to Spread The bowed exterior columns buckled. Their gravity loads were transferred to the adjacent exterior columns, but those columns quickly became overloaded as well. In W.T.C 1, the south wall failed. In W.T.C 2, the east wall failed. 

STEP 6: Global Collapse Ensued The portions of the buildings above where the failures occurred tilted in the direction of the failed walls, accompanied by a downward movement. The stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the falling upper sections.

But N.I.S.T ended up significantly extending that timeline. A report that in June 2005 was set for release by the end of that year would end up being released almost three years later. In a March 2006 New York Magazine interview, N.I.S.T lead investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder provided some possible insight into why the report was delayed so long. When asked about W.T.C 7, Dr. Sunder said that N.I.S.T had some “preliminary hypotheses,” then added, “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” This was three and a half years into N.I.S.T’s W.T.C investigation.

That same month, N.I.S.T awarded a new contract to Applied Research Associates for the job of determining the location and cause of the initiating event and the subsequent series of failures that led to the total collapse of W.T.C 7. The contract was appended in August 2006 to include the task of determining if any “hypothetical blast event or events” contributed to the destruction of W.T.C 7. As we will see in Chapter 6, N.I.S.T would use the analysis performed under this contract in its attempt to disprove the hypothesis of controlled demolition. 

In August 2008, the draft for public comment was finally released. That November, the final report was published. Diesel fuel fires and structural damage were no longer hypothesized to have contributed to the collapse. Instead, normal office fires were said to be the sole cause, making it “the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.” 
Image result for images of A floor plan of WTC 1
A floor plan of W.T.C 1. Rather than a conventional design where the support columns are arranged in a grid, the designers concentrated all of the columns at the center and the perimeter, creating a central core and an outer shell connected by horizontal floor trusses spanning from the center to the perimeter
Image result for images of WTC 1 during construction
W.T.C 1 during construction
Image result for images of A floor plan of WTC 7. According to NIST, Column 79 on the northeast side was the first column to fail.
A floor plan of W.T.C 7. According to N.I.S.T, Column 79 on the northeast side was the first column to fail.
Image result for images of A view of the 47-story WTC 7 from the viewing area of WTC 2.
A view of the 47-story W.T.C 7 from the viewing area of W.T.C 2.
Table 3: 
Summary of N.I.S.T’s Probable Collapse 
Sequence for W.T.C 7 

STEP 1: Debris from W.T.C 1 Ignited Fires Falling debris from W.T.C 1, which collapsed at 10:28 AM, ignited fires on at least 10 different floors between Floors 7 and 30. 

STEP 2: Fire Spread Because water was not available in W.T.C 7, as a result of the water main being broken when W.T.C 1 collapsed, the automatic sprinkler system and the firefighters were unable to suppress the fires. Fires on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13 spread over the course of several hours. 

STEP 3: Thermal Expansion of Beams The fires heated steel floor beams in affected areas to temperatures up to 700°C (1,292°F), causing them to thermally expand and damaging the floor framing on several floors. 

STEP 4: Girder Walk-off On the northeast corner of the building below the 13th floor, thermally expanding beams below Floor 13 pushed a critical girder (girder A2001) off of its seat at core corner Column 79. This thermal expansion occurred at temperatures at or below approximately 400°C (750°F), which is “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in design practice for establishing structural fire resistance ratings.” 

STEP 5: Cascade of Floor Failures The unsupported girder, along with other local fire-induced damage, caused Floor 13 to collapse. This caused a cascade of floor failures down to Floor 5. 

STEP 6A: Buckling of Column 79 Due to the cascade of floors, Column 79 was left laterally unsupported over nine floors, causing the column to buckle eastward between Floors 5 and 14. As Column 79 buckled, its upper section dropped, causing the kink and subsequent fall of the east penthouse observed in videos. 

STEP 6B: Buckling of Columns 80 and 81 The cascading failures of the lower floors surrounding Column 79 led to increased unsupported length in Columns 80 and 81, as well as debris falling onto them and loads being redistributed to them, causing them to buckle. 

STEP 7: Propagation of Internal Column and Floor Failures All of the floor connections to Columns 79, 80, and 81 as well as the connections to the exterior columns failed, causing all the floors on the east side of the building to fall and leaving the exterior facade on the east quarter of W.T.C 7 a hollow shell. The interior column failures then progressed westward, with each north-south line of three core columns buckling in succession as a result of the loss of lateral support from floor system failures plus forces exerted by falling debris plus and the redistribution of loads from buckled columns. This sequence led to the drop of the screen wall and west penthouse. 

STEP 8: Failure of the Exterior Columns With loads redistributed to the exterior columns, the exterior columns buckled between Floors 7 and 14, causing the entire visible section of the building to drop uniformly as a unit, as observed in the videos.

next
The Destruction of W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2

footnotes
Introduction 
1. Public opinion polls by Scripps Survey Research Center, Angus Reid, and You Gov have found 63 to 77 percent of Americans believe the destruction of W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 was caused by airplane impacts and fires. http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/-public-opinion-on-conspiracy-theories_181649218739.pdf and http://rethink911.org/ docs/ReThink911_YouGov_Poll_Results_Summary. pdf.
2. The above-referenced public opinion polls found 13 to 16 percent of Americans believe the destruction of W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 was caused by controlled demolition. 
3. As of the publication of this booklet, 2,353 verified architects and engineers have signed the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition calling for a new investigation into the destruction of W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7. 

Chapter 1 
1. Griffin, David Ray: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (2009), p. 23. 
2. N.I.S.T: Analysis of Needs and Existing Capabilities for Full-Scale Fire Resistance Testing (October 2008). 

Chapter 2 
1. Griffin, p. 20. 
2. Glanz, James and Lipton, Eric: City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center (2003), p. 330. 
3. Ibid., pp. 330–332. 
4. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science: Hearing: The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps (May 1, 2002), p. 27. 
5. At the 2015 Annual Business Meeting of the American Institute of Architects (A.I.A), during debate on a proposed resolution calling for the A.I.A to officially support a new investigation of the collapse of W.T.C 7, Anthony Schirripa, F.A.I.A, former president of the New York A.I.A Chapter, stated: “[W.T.C 7] collapsed because of a raging fire caused by 6,000-plus gallons of diesel fuel that fed the New York City Emergency Response Center. You need to admit that to yourselves.” 
6. At the above-referenced 2015 A.I.A Annual Business Meeting, Donald King, F.A.I.A, a member of the A.I.A Strategic Council, stated: “The collapse of that building, according to the report, was caused by massive, intensive fire and the collision of debris from the collapse of World Trade Center Building, or Tower 1…. It was extreme fire and structural damage that caused the collapse.” 
7. Ibid.




FAIR USE NOTICE

THIS SITE CONTAINS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE USE OF WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. AS A JOURNALIST, I AM MAKING SUCH MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN MY EFFORTS TO ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF ARTISTIC, CULTURAL, HISTORIC, RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL ISSUES. I BELIEVE THIS CONSTITUTES A 'FAIR USE' OF ANY SUCH COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 107 OF THE US COPYRIGHT LAW.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL CAN BE REMOVED ON THE REQUEST OF THE OWNER.

No comments:

Part 1 Windswept House A VATICAN NOVEL....History as Prologue: End Signs

Windswept House A VATICAN NOVEL  by Malachi Martin History as Prologue: End Signs  1957   DIPLOMATS schooled in harsh times and in the tough...