PART 4 OF 4:BEYOND MISINFORMATION,NIST'S EVIDENCE FOR FIRE INDUCED FAILURE & APPENDIX A% B

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

6

N.I.S.T’s Evidence for 

Fire-Induced Failure 

This chapter provides an overview of the analyses that N.I.S.T performed to support its hypothesis of fire-induced failure. The areas that will be examined include N.I.S.T’s analysis of “hypothetical blast scenarios” in W.T.C 7 and the possible use of thermite, N.I.S.T’s estimates of fireproofing dislodgement in W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2, N.I.S.T’s testing of the steel temperatures, and N.I.S.T’s computer modeling.

NIST investigator John Gross poses next to a piece of eroded, sulfidated steel from W.T.C 7 in October 2001.

In the last three chapters, we examined the evidence regarding the structural behavior of W.T.C 1, W.T.C 2, and W.T.C 7 during their destruction, as well as evidence showing the occurrence of high-temperature thermitic reactions. We found consistently that N.I.S.T either denied the evidence, ignored it, or provided speculative explanations not based upon scientific analysis. By contrast, the hypothesis of controlled demolition readily, simply, and completely explained all of the evidence examined. 

In this final chapter, we will turn to evaluating the analyses that N.I.S.T performed to support its hypothesis of fire-induced failure. To guide our evaluation of N.I.S.T’s analyses, we will bring back the scientific principle discussed in Chapter 1: “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.” 

Because N.I.S.T’s hypothesis involves an unprecedented cause to explain three instances of a familiar occurrence in one day, each of which exhibited nearly all of the features of the same causal factor that brought about previous instances of that occurrence — namely, the procedure known as “controlled demolition” — the question we will ask is whether N.I.S.T has provided “extraordinary evidence” to support its hypothesis.

Hypothetical Blast Scenarios 

and Thermite Use 

The only substantive analysis that N.I.S.T performed regarding the hypothesis of controlled demolition was its consideration of “hypothetical blast scenarios” for the destruction of W.T.C 7, carried out under a contract with Applied Research Associates beginning in August 2006. 

N.I.S.T’s analysis started with identifying a hypothetical blast event involving the minimum amount of explosive material required to fail Column 79. It determined that to be a linear-shaped charge consisting of nine pounds of RDX. From there, it performed analyses to assess how much window breakage and noise would result — and whether it was feasible for someone to plant such explosives in the building. 

NIST concluded the following: 

■ The minimum charge (lower bound) required to fail a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have produced a pressure wave that would have broken windows on the north and east faces of the building near Column 79. The visual evidence did not show such breakage…. 

■ The noise level at a distance of ½ mile would have been on the order of 130 dB to 140dB…. People on the street would have heard 9 lb of RDX go off a mile away…. 

■ Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the building without detection….1 

N.I.S.T’s analysis of “hypothetical blast scenarios” is a textbook example of straw man tactics, where an argument is constructed and then refuted to give the impression that an opponent’s argument has been defeated, when in fact the refuted argument is not the opponent’s. 

Proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis have seldom, if ever, argued that a high explosive such as R.D.X was used to destroy W.T.C 7. Rather, as the evidence examined in Chapter 5 strongly suggests, the leading hypothesis is that an explosive form of thermite called “nano-thermite” — possibly in combination with some form of explosives and other incendiaries — was used to destroy W.T.C 7. Using nano-thermite, instead of the more powerful R.D.X, would allow a perpetrator to demolish a building while concealing the fact that he had planted explosives. 

Even though N.I.S.T was fully aware of nano-thermite technology 2 and it knew that the leading hypothesis of controlled demolition involved some form of thermite, as evidenced by its F.A.Q (see below), it selected a “straw man” substance  R.D.X for its hypothetical blast event. Thus, its analyses of the window breakage and noise associated with R.D.X are irrelevant. 

Furthermore, the evidence examined in Chapter 4 contradicts N.I.S.T’s claim that explosions were not observed by eyewitnesses or captured on video. Indeed, explosions were observed by eyewitnesses and captured on video. As one person at the scene recounted, “It looked like there was a shock wave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out.” Video evidence also contradicts N.I.S.T’s claim that window breakage did not occur. In particular, a video that surfaced in 2008 clearly shows vertical sequences of explosions and window breakage on the north face of W.T.C 7 as it began to collapse.3 

In suggesting that “occupants, support staff, and visitors would have noticed evidence of such activities [i.e., placing charges],” N.I.S.T also assumed that the planting of explosives would have happened without the knowledge of someone responsible for security at W.T.C 7. But proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis have seldom suggested that the planting of explosives could have been accomplished without the knowledge and complicity of someone in charge of security at W.T.C 7.

N.I.S.T’s analysis also assumed that a demolition of W.T.C 7 would have been executed in the manner of a typical commercial controlled demolition. But according to researcher Jim Hoffman, “Explosive devices could have been disguised as or concealed within legitimate equipment…. Numerous such possibilities are afforded by the properties of energetic materials.” In fact, Hoffman argues, “Any such job would have been far simpler than the structural retrofit of the CitiCorp Tower” — a feat the owners successfully managed in 1978 without their tenants knowing about it, after learning that the building was likely to topple in a hurricane.4 

Thermite Instead of Nano-Thermite 

N.I.S.T advanced a second straw man argument when it tackled the idea in both of its F.A.Q documents that thermite or thermate alone were used to destroy the buildings. N.I.S.T gave the following answer in response to the question of whether it tested the steel for residues of thermite: 

[Thermite] burns slowly relative to explosive materials…. 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius…. Many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time…. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition. 

Once again, N.I.S.T constructed an easily refutable argument that is not the argument actually advanced by proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis. It is well known that thermite and thermate alone do not possess the explosiveness needed to account for a large amount of the evidence of explosions that N.I.S.T itself ignored (see Chapters 3 and 4). 

Had it been N.I.S.T’s genuine intention “to determine whether explosives could have been used to cause the collapses,” it would have tested the steel for explosives and thermite residues. 

Estimates of Fireproofing Dislodgement 

The fire protection in W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 consisted primarily of “sprayed fire-resistive material,” or S.F.R.M. Some columns also had gypsum wallboard enclosures, and some had a combination of both. 

N.I.S.T’s probable collapse sequence depends heavily upon the dislodgement of these materials by the airplane impacts. In its final report on W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2, N.I.S.T concluded: 

The W.T.C towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September 11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by the aircraft impact.5 

Yet N.I.S.T produced remarkably little evidence to support its claim that fireproofing dislodgement significantly affected the structures. 

Because such dislodgement would not have been visible from outside the buildings, the extent of dislodgement had to be estimated based on where N.I.S.T’s aircraft impact simulations predicted damage to wall partitions or furnishings. At the very end of its investigation, N.I.S.T finally performed physical testing “to provide evidence regarding the assumption that…the S.F.R.M used for thermal insulation of structural members was damaged and dislodged.” This testing, contained in N.I.S.T’s “Debris Impact Study,” involved shooting 15 rounds from a shotgun at a flat steel plate and a metal bar coated with fireproofing inside a plywood box. Referring to that experiment, Kevin Ryan writes: 

It’s not hard to see that these tests actually disproved their findings.... Nearly 100,000 blasts would have been needed based on N.I.S.T’s own damage estimates, and these would have to be directed in a very symmetrical fashion to strip the columns and floors from all sides…. 

To put N.I.S.T’s pivotal claim to rest, there was simply no energy available to cause fireproofing loss. Previous calculations by engineers at M.I.T had shown that all the kinetic energy from the aircraft was consumed in breaking columns, crushing the floors and destroying the aircraft itself. But N.I.S.T’s tests indicate that 1 M.J of energy was needed per square meter of surface area to sheer the fireproofing off…. The extra energy needed would be several times more than the amount of kinetic energy available to begin with.6 

Moreover, fireproofing dislodgement could not have contributed to the collapse of W.T.C 1, for it did not occur where the collapse initiated. As shown in Chapter 3, the collapse of W.T.C 1 started at the 98th floor. Yet, according to N.I.S.T, no fireproofing was dislodged on any of the core columns on the 98th floor or on the floor trusses supporting the 99th floor. 

How Hot Did the Steel Become? 

Although nearly all of the W.T.C steel was destroyed before it could be inspected,7 N.I.S.T was able to obtain “about 236 pieces of W.T.C steel,” as reported in its December 2003 Public Update. N.I.S.T explained that “regions of impact and fire damage were emphasized in the selection of the steel for the Investigation.” It then declared, “N.I.S.T believes that this collection of steel from the W.T.C Towers is adequate for the purposes of the Investigation.” 

Out of the more than 170 areas that N.I.S.T tested on recovered exterior columns, it found only three locations that bore evidence of the steel reaching temperatures above 250°C. N.I.S.T also found that the steel “showed no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600°C for any significant time.” It obtained similar results from the two core columns recovered from the fire-affected floors.8 N.I.S.T therefore conceded: 

From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.9 

However, despite its initial declaration that the collected steel was “adequate for the purposes of the investigation,” N.I.S.T’s report downplays the results of its testing, frequently reminding the reader that the exterior columns it tested were only three percent of the exterior columns on the fire floors and thus “cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors.” 

From a statistical perspective, though, 170 areas is not an insignificant sample size from which to extrapolate, particularly when “regions of impact and fire damage were emphasized” and less than two percent of the sample reached temperatures above 250°C — not to mention the temperatures of 600° and higher used in N.I.S.T’s computer model. 

The aforementioned Request for Correction filed in 2007 asked that N.I.S.T’s report “be revised to make its computer simulation conditions actually simulate physical reality.” It noted: 

N.I.S.T has provided no justification whatsoever for allowing its computer simulations to heat the steel to temperatures well above 600°C when its own physical tests reveal that little, if any, of the steel inside the W.T.C ever reached 600°C. 

Yet N.I.S.T’s response to the Request for Correction completely ignored the 170 areas on the exterior columns that N.I.S.T had tested. Instead, the response focused solely on the two core columns that it had also tested, making the obvious claim that they were too small a sample size from which to extrapolate. And it asserted the validity of its fire modeling, which, however informative, tells us nothing conclusive about the temperatures that the steel reached.

N.I.S.T’s Computer Modeling 

Because most of the W.T.C steel was destroyed before it could be inspected, the N.I.S.T W.T.C investigation had to rely almost entirely on computer modeling. The modeling performed by N.I.S.T failed effectively disproving its hypothesis — in two ways: 

1. It did not replicate the observed structural behavior of the buildings, and 

2. It required significant manipulation — in other words, applying information known to be factually unsupported — in order to achieve collapse initiation. 

Each failing of N.I.S.T’s modeling will be discussed below — first for W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2, then for W.T.C 7. 

Modeling of W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 

As discussed in Chapter 3, N.I.S.T provided no modeling to support its claim that the upper sections of W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 could accelerate through 92 stories and 76 stories, respectively, of intact structure “essentially in free fall.” N.I.S.T later admitted, “Because of the magnitude of deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution…. We were unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.” N.I.S.T also refused to provide visualizations of its models showing collapse initiation.10 

Among the many ways in which N.I.S.T manipulated its modeling of W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2, two are critical to N.I.S.T’s probable collapse sequence. First, the results of N.I.S.T’s physical testing on floor assemblies subjected to fire conditions of 2,000°F showed that the floors sagged four inches after 60 minutes of exposure and six inches after 100 minutes of exposure, which were the approximate duration's of the fires in W.T.C 2 and W.T.C 1, respectively.11 However, N.I.S.T’s modeling allowed for sagging of more than 42 inches. 12 

In its response to the 2007 Request for Correction and in its F.A.Q's, N.I.S.T claimed that the floor assembly testing was not intended to be relevant to its structural analysis: Only fireproofed floor assemblies were tested, whereas the fireproofing on September 11 was widely dislodged. But the authors of the Request for Correction rejected that claim for a number of reasons: 

1. What was the purpose of the testing if it was not to analyze the thermal-structural response of the towers? 

2. The tested floor assemblies actually had less fireproofing on them than the real W.T.C floor assemblies. 

3. N.I.S.T did not substantiate its claim that fireproofing dislodgement significantly affected the structures, as discussed above. 

4. The duration of the fires in the testing was much longer than the duration of the fires in the areas where N.I.S.T claimed the floors sagged. 

The second critical way in which N.I.S.T manipulated its modeling of W.T.C 1 and W.T.C 2 was to artificially induce the inward bowing of exterior columns to the point of buckling (which N.I.S.T claimed initiated the collapses). Because N.I.S.T’s model showed that floor sagging did not cause the exterior columns to bow inward to the point of failing, N.I.S.T applied an artificial lateral load of 5,000 pounds to each column from outside the building in order to make the exterior columns fail. In a feat of circular logic, N.I.S.T justified doing so in order to match the observed inward bowing.13 

Modeling of W.T.C 7 

As discussed in Chapter 4 of this booklet, N.I.S.T asserted that the three stages of collapse progression it measured for W.T.C 7 were “consistent with the results of the global collapse analyses discussed in Chapter 12 of N.I.S.T N.C.S.T.A.R 1-9” — where N.I.S.T presented the results of its computer model. 

However, when we view the model,14 we see  besides the fact that it stops after only two seconds, which is well before the end of the collapse that it fails to replicate the observed structural behavior in two important ways. First, it fails to show the 2.25 seconds of free fall that N.I.S.T finally acknowledged. Second, it shows large deformations of the building’s exterior structure that are not observed in the videos. 

N.I.S.T also had to manipulate its modeling significantly just to get the collapse to initiate. Specifically — in order to make the floor beams under Floor 13 expand and push the critical girder (A2001) off its seat and allegedly trigger a total collapse of the building — N.I.S.T took the following steps: 

1. It ignored the fact that the fire in the northeast section of Floor 12 had burned out over an hour before it supposedly caused the beams under Floor 13 to expand. 

2. It omitted shear studs on girder A2001 that would have prevented the girder from being pushed off its seat. 

3. It inexplicably heated the floor beams but not the floor slab above them, thus causing the floor beams, but not the slab, to expand. This caused the shear studs connecting the floor beams and the slab to fail, which allowed the floor beams to move independently of the slab. 

4. It ignored the fact that the floor beams could expand no more than 5 ¾ inches — less than the 6¼ inches required to push the girder off its seat — before shortening, caused by sagging, would overtake expansion. 

5. It omitted web/flange stiffeners that would have prevented the bottom flange of the girder from folding (even if the beams had somehow expanded 61 /4 inches).15 

Had N.I.S.T modeled W.T.C 7 accurately, the mechanism that it claimed initiated the collapse would not have been feasible. 

Conclusion 

In this final chapter we examined four areas of analysis that N.I.S.T performed to support its hypothesis of fire-induced failure. 

First, we found that N.I.S.T’s analysis of “hypothetical blast scenarios” and the possible use of thermite were textbook examples of straw man tactics. We then found that N.I.S.T provided remarkably little evidence to support its claim that fireproofing dislodgement significantly affected the structures. Next, we saw that, although N.I.S.T conceded that “no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to…have resulted in weakening of the steel structure,” it ignored the results of its testing and instead continued to use temperatures of 600°C and higher in its models. As for N.I.S.T’s computer modeling, we found that it failed to replicate the observed structural behavior of the buildings and it required significant manipulation in order to achieve collapse initiation. 

Did N.I.S.T provide “extraordinary 

evidence” to support its hypothesis? 

The answer is “no.” N.I.S.T fell far short of providing extraordinary evidence — not for lack of trying or lack of resources or lack of expertise, but because there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of fire-induced failure. 

Appendix A: 

Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions 

Identification 

Michael Donovan, FDNY “I got up, I got into the parking garages, was knocked down by the percussion. I thought there had been an explosion or a bomb that they had blown up there.” 

James Duffy, FDNY 
Q. “When either tower came down, did you have any advanced warning?” 
A. “Oh, no. I didn’t know what it was when we were inside. I didn’t know the building had collapsed, actually. I thought it was a bomb. I thought a bomb had gone off.” 

Julio Marrero, FDNY “That’s when I just broke down and cried at Bellevue Hospital, because it was just so overwhelming. I just knew that what happened was horrific. It was a bombing.” 

Timothy Hoppey, FDNY “...that’s when we heard the rumble. I looked up, and it was just a black cloud directly overhead. At that point I was thinking it was a secondary explosion.” 

John Malley, FDNY “As we walked through those revolving doors, that’s when we felt the rumble. I felt the rumbling, and then I felt the force coming at me. I was like, what the hell is that? In my mind it was a bomb going off. The pressure got so great, I stepped back behind the columns separating the revolving doors. Then the force just blew past me.” 

William Reynolds, FDNY “After a while, and I don’t know how long it was, I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a pancake...” 
Q. “Bill, just one question. The fire that you saw, where was the fire? Like up at the upper levels where it started collapsing?” 
A. “It appeared somewhere below that. Maybe twenty floors below the impact area of the plane...” 
Q. “You’re talking about the north tower now; right?” 
A. “Before the north tower fell. He said,’No.’ I said, ‘Why not? They blew up the other one.’ I thought they blew it up with a bomb. I said, ‘If they blew up the one, you know they’re gonna blow up the other one.’” 

Thomas Turilli, FDNY “The door closed, they went up, and it just seemed a couple seconds and all of a sudden you just heard like it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind...” 

Louie Cacchioli, Louie, FDNY “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.” 

T. Inman, PAPD (Port Authority Police Dept.) “As a roll call was being taken of the responding Detectives, Tower #2 began to collapse. This occurred after a secondary explosion on the west side of the tower that appeared to take place in the area of the high 60’s. The area above the secondary explosion actually leaned to the west and then the collapse took place.” 

Power 

Frank Campagna, FDNY “That’s when it went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down. I turned my head and everybody was scattering.” 

Roy Chelsen, FDNY “All of a sudden we heard this huge explosion, and that’s when the tower started coming down.” 

Paul Curran, FDNY “With that, all a sudden the tower went completely — a horrendous noise, a very, very tremendous explosion, and a very heavy wind came through the tower. The wind almost knocked you down.” 

Gary Gates, FDNY “I looked up, and the building exploded, the building that we were very close to, which was one tower. The whole top came off like a volcano.” 

Jerry Gombo, FDNY “...it felt sort of like an earthquake. The sky darkened and you heard this thunderous roar. It was like a volcano, if you will, not that I ever experienced a volcano, but I guess that’s the way I could describe it, and this cloud just coming down. The ground was shaking and this roar...” 

Edward Kennedy, FDNY “We took two steps, there was a tremendous boom, explosion, we both turned around, and the top of the building was coming down at us. With this I just turned to Richie and said run.” 

George Kozlowski, FDNY “As we were walking, we heard — we thought it was another plane coming. It was like a big shhhhh. A thousand times louder than that. It sounded like a missile coming and we just started booking. We took off like bats out of hell. We made it around the corner and that’s when the shit hit the fan right then and there. We heard that loud and then ba boom. I just — it was like an earthquake or whatever. A giant. giant explosion...Then this big gust came and I just went flying, maybe 30, 40 feet. Tumbling. I got up, got on my hands and knees because all of the white shit was all over me. I just kept crawling. My ears were like deaf, you know, when you hear a giant firecracker or something.” 

Julio Marrero, FDNY “...I heard a loud bang. We looked up, and we just saw the building starting to collapse. I looked over and started to scream at my partner, which he was inside the vehicle...I was screaming from the top of my lungs, and I must have been about ten feet away from her and she couldn’t even hear me, because the building was so loud, the explosion, that she couldn’t even hear me.” 

Edward Martinez, FDNY “...I heard like a big explosion, a tremendous explosion, let me put it that way and rumbling sound. At that time I started seeing things coming down...” 

Keith Murphy, FDNY “I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don’t know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out...I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you. It sounded like nothing I had ever heard in my life, but it didn’t sound good. All of a sudden I could feel the floor started to shake and sway. We were being thrown like literally off our feet, side to side, getting banged around and then a tremendous wind started to happen. It probably lasted maybe 15 seconds, 10 to 15 seconds. It seemed like a hurricane force wind. It would blow you off your feet...” 

John Murray, FDNY “...we were standing there watching the north tower and not even paying attention to the south tower. Then you look up and it’s like holy shit, the building didn’t come down, it shot straight out over our heads, like straight across West Street. Holy shit, there is no fucking way we are going to out run this thing.” 

Richard Smiouskas, FDNY “All of a sudden there was this groaning sound like a roar, grrrr. The ground started to shake....It looked like an earthquake. The ground was shaking. I fell to the floor. My camera bag opened up. The cameras went skidding across the floor. The windows started exploding in...I didn’t know exactly what was going on outside. I’m thinking maybe the building snapped in half. I’m thinking maybe a bomb blew up. I’m thinking it could have been a nuclear.” 

C. Krueger, PAPD “While searching the floor there was a tremendous explosion knocking me off my feet onto the floor, I was covered with debris…” 

T. Marten, PAPD “Then I heard a tremendous explosion and I looked up and saw Building Two snap at the top and collapse into it self.” 

Pt. Middleton, PAPD “I was approximately one block away from Tower One when Tower Two appeared to explode at the roof top and several floors below. Then fire balls and debris shot out of the windows and rocketed into the skies and fall [fell?] below. As the Building began to disintegrate before your very eyes, there came an earth-shaking roar which grew louder and louder. Then all of a sudden a huge gigantic billing [billowing?] cloud filled with smoke, and ash. Pieces of cement particles and sections of the building came raining down...As the ash and cement particles began to build up under the vehicle it became pitch black out and suddenly the oxygen left the air and an intense heat was felt.” 

Patty Sabga, Journalist, CNN 
Aaron Brown: “Patty, are you there?” 
Patty Sabga: “Yes, I’m here.” 
Aaron Brown: “Whaddya got?” 
Patty Sabga: “About an hour ago I was on the corner of Broadway and Park Place—that’s about a thousand yards from the World Trade Center—when the first Tower collapsed. It was a massive explosion...When that explosion occurred it was like a scene out of a horror film...” 

Teresa Veliz, civilan “BOOM! The glass doors at the top of the escalator shattered. I thought it was a bomb. But then a huge wind, with the force of a hurricane, swept across us. I don’t know what happened to the people standing in front of us, but I think they were blown away.” 

Pattern 

Richard Banaciski, FDNY “We were there I don’t know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions... 

Edward Cachia, FDNY “As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.” 

Frank Cruthers, FDNY “And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.” 

Karin Deshore, FDNY “Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. 

Brian Dixon, FDNY “I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing — it actually looked — the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see — I could see two sides of it and the other side — it just looked like that floor blew out. 

Thomas Fiztpatrick, FDNY “All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. I don’t think I remember that. I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.” 

Christopher Fenyo, FDNY “About a couple minutes after George came back to me is when the south tower from our perspective exploded from about midway up the building. We all turned and ran... [p. 5]...At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges.” 

Stephen Gregory, FDNY I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought — at that time I didn’t know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.” 
Q. “Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?” 
A. “No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That’s what I thought I saw. And I didn’t broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don’t know if I’m crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.” 

Daniel Rivera, FDNY “Then that’s when I kept on walking close to the south tower and that’s when that building collapsed.” 
Q. “How did you know that it was coming down?” 
A. “That noise. It was a noise.” 
Q. “What did you hear? What did you see?” 
A. “It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was—do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’? That’s exactly what—because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that’s when I saw the building coming down.” 

Kenneth Rogers, FDNY “...we were standing there with about five companies and we were just waiting for our assignment and then there was an explosion in the south tower, which according to this map, this exposure just blew out in flames. A lot of guys left at that point. I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing.” 

Pt. Middleton, PAPD “As I continued to wave them back periodically you would hear a loud boom go off at the top of tower one...After approximately 15 minuets [minutes] suddenly there was another loud boom at the upper floors, then there was a series of smaller explosions which appeared to go completely around the building at the upper floors. And another loud earth shattering blast with a large fire ball which blew out more debris and at that point everyone began to run north on West Broad street. As the building began to crumble...we were over taken by another huge cloud of dust...” 

John Bussey, Wall Street Journal “Unknown to the dozens of firefighters on the street, and those of us still in offices in the neighborhood, the South Tower was weakening structurally. Off the phone, and collecting my thoughts for the next report, I heard metallic crashes and looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor, spewing glass and metal outward. One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces. It was the building apparently collapsing in on itself, pancaking to the earth.” 

Ross Milanytch, employee, Chase Manhattan Bank “It started exploding...It was about the 70th floor. And each second another floor exploded out for about eight floors, before the cloud obscured it all.” 

A full compilation of the 156 eyewitness accounts identified by Dr. Graeme MacQueen can be viewed at http://AE911Truth.org/downloads/156eyewitnessaccounts.pdf.

Appendix B: 

Accounts Indicating Foreknowledge 

of W.T.C 7’s Destruction

Early Predictions 

Michael Currid, FDNY* Someone from the Office of Emergency Management told us that this building was in serious danger of collapse…. Rich, a few other people and I went inside to the stairwells and started yelling up, “Drop everything and get out!” Dean E. Murphy, Editor, “September 11: An Oral History,” 2002, pp. 175-176. 

NIST NCSTAR 1-8 At approximately 11:30 AM, F.D.N.Y assigned a Chief Officer to take charge of operations at W.T.C 7…. When the Chief Officer in charge of W.T.C 7 got to Barclay Street and West Broadway, numerous firefighters and officers were coming out of W.T.C 7. These firefighters indicated that several blocks needed to be cleared around W.T.C 7 because they thought that the building was going to collapse. 

Chief Peter Hayden, FDNY, BBC Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower Narrator: Just after midday, firefighters were watching Tower 7 nervously. The Deputy Chief of the New York Fire Department that day [Peter Hayden] remembers the scene.... “We had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon? And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money. He said, ‘In its current state you have about five hours.’” 

Establishing a Safety 

Zone and Waiting 

Captain Ray Goldback, FDNY There was a big discussion going…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…. 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. 

Frank Fellini, FDNY For the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building…. 

Frank Conguista, FDNY While we were searching the subbasements, they decided that 7 World Trade Center…was going to collapse. 

David Moriarty, FDNY Then I remember seeing like a few different chiefs at the corner throughout the day. They became very concerned about the condition of Seven World Trade and where we were in vicinity to that. They kept announcing the collapse and who’s moving, and we got pushed further and further west. 

Vincent Mazza, FDNY Later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down, they kept backing us up Vesey, almost like a full block. They were concerned about seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up. 

Decosta Wright, FDNY EMT Basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand…. Five blocks away…. Exactly right on point, the cloud just stopped right there. 

Joseph Fortis, FDNY They pulled us all back at the time, almost about an hour before it, because they were sure – they knew it was going to come down, but they weren’t sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe. They wouldn’t let anyone next to I guess the two piles, we would call them, where one and two was. We stood back. We waited. 

Media Reports 

Aaron Brown, CNN 4:10 PM (1 hour and 10 minutes prior to the collapse): We are getting information now that one of the other buildings, Building 7 in the World Trade Center complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing…. Now we are told that there is a fire there and that building may collapse as well, as you can see. 

Phil Hayton, BBC News 4:57 PM (23 minutes prior to the collapse): We’ve got some news just coming in actually that the Salomon Brothers building in New York right in the heart of Manhattan has also collapsed. 

Hayton, 5:00 PM: The 47-story Salomon Brothers’, situated very close to the World Trade Center, has also just collapsed. 

Hayton, 5:07 PM: Now more on the latest building collapse in New York. You might have heard just a few moments ago I was talking about the Salomon Brothers building [W.T.C 7] collapsing. And indeed it has…. And it seems that this was not a result of a new attack. It was because the building had been weakened during this morning’s attacks…. Jane, what more can you tell us about the Salomon Brothers building and its collapse? 

Jane Standley, BBC News 5:08 PM: Well, really only what you already know. (Behind Standley the building is still standing. At 5:09 PM the caption on the bottom of the screen read: “The 47-storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed. ”) 

Ashleigh Banfield, MSNBC Time unknown: The tall one is number 7 World Trade Center. I’ve heard several reports from several different officers now that that is the building that is gonna go down next. In fact, one officer told me they’re just waiting for that to come down at this point…. Oh my god…. This is it. Banfield, after the collapse, exact time unknown: We had been warned. They were just waiting for this one to come down…. We’d been cleared five different times northward from Ground Zero. 

Brian Williams, MSNBC Minutes after the collapse: What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened. We were watching number 7 World Trade…. This was a 40-story building they’d been watching all day…. We are on the phone with New York Fire Department David Rastuccio…. Can you confirm it was number 7 that just went in?... And you guys knew this was coming all day? 

Planning or Consideration 

David Rastuccio, FDNY, interviewed by Brian Williams, MSNBC We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would come down on its own or it would be taken down. 

Indira Singh, EMT, on Guns and Butter Radio By noon or one o’clock, they told us we had to move from that triage site…because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down. [Interviewer: Did they actually use the word “brought down” and who was it that was telling you that?] The fire department…and they did use the word “we’re going to have to bring it down.” 

Jeffrey Shapiro, FOXNews.com Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein…was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building — since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall. 

Larry Silverstein, WTC Leaseholder, on PBS I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, “You know we’ve had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. 

*All accounts from F.D.N.Y personnel are from the F.D.N.Y World Trade Center Task Force Interviews unless otherwise noted.

FOOTNOTES

Chapter 6 

1. NIST: NCSTAR 1-9, p. 357. 

2. Ryan, Kevin: “The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (July 2008). 

3. http://AE911Truth.org/downloads/video/ WTC7-West.mp4. 

4. Hoffman, Jim: Frequently Asked Questions: Controlled Demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/ faq/demolition.html. 

5. NIST: NCSTAR 1, p. xxxviii. 

6. Ryan, Kevin: “What is 9/11 Truth? – The First Steps,” The Journal of 9/11 Studies (August 2006). 7. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science. 

8. NIST: NCSTAR 1-3, p. xli. 

9. NIST: NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235. 

10. Parker, David: “WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualization,” New Civil Engineer (October 6, 2005). 

11. NIST: NCSTAR 1-6B, Chapters 4 and 5. Note: NIST’s floor assembly tests were conducted on half-size trusses. 

12. NIST: NCSTAR 1-6, p. 86. 

13. NIST: NCSTAR 1-6D, pp. 180, 181, and Appendix A. 

14. http://wtcdata.nist.gov/gallery2/v/NIST+Materials+and+Data/Computer+Simulations/ WTC7_Structural+Response. 

15. NIST public affairs officer Michael Newman confirmed in email correspondence with researcher David Cole on October 25, 2013, that the web/flange stiffeners on girder A2001 were omitted from NIST’s computer model of WTC 7.

http://cafr1.com/Beyond-Misinformation-2015.pdf