The Federal Report Fails to Explain the Mysterious World Trade Center Building 7 Collapse at Free Fall Speed and Attempts to Camouflage the Crime through the Least Likely Hypothesis
Nothing seems to move normally in the investigative world of 9/11 for anyone who has taken the time to try and understand the 9/11 events.
In this Alice and Wonderland scenario, up is down, left is right and common sense and intelligence are suspended in a mixture of government vitriolic leveled against doubters for not being patriotic true believers; while stupidity and treason seem somehow intertwined in the official answer. An onlooker gazes at the picture and asks himself the question, what is going on?
So what is to be thought about the amazing fete of the Salomon Brothers building, WTC Building 7, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the Commerce Department assigned the responsibility of investigating WTC 7’s collapse? Building 7 accomplished something that a steel framed high- rise structure had never done in the history of high- rise fires. It completely collapsed in its own footprint from small office fires, and it did, during the collapse for 2.25 seconds, at free- fall rate.
The laws of physics suggest that this is impossible, if the building is to come down by fire. In order for anything to fall at free-fall rate, there can be no resistance below it. Building #7 was a giant, 47 stories and 610 feet tall. It would be the tallest building in thirty-three states. It was not hit by an airplane, and was not subject to any jet fuel. The federal reports, however, missed the free fall aspects of Building 7 at first glance, which consisted of studying the building’s collapse for six years and finally presenting a report in 2008.
Physicist David Chandler, a high school teacher, had to give NIST a course on scientific principles after they released their long awaited report, which did not mention the free- fall nature of the collapse. When NIST recovered from the embarrassing public punch in the gut, they did agree with Mr. Chandler, that there was free fall for 110 feet or 8 stories for 2.25 seconds, which is what Chandler stated. NIST however, could not explain the free- fall aspect, as they locked themselves into a hypothesis that fire brought the steel framed high- rise down, although this had never happened previously. NIST justified its findings with an animated computer simulation which did not closely resemble the actual video footage of the WTC 7 collapse. They further refused to reveal the computer inputs of their mathematical model, making it impossible to check their work.
So NIST had two problems:
1. A steel- structured high rise has never collapsed before from fire. WTC 7 is a steel structured high rise.
2. A steel-framed high rise collapsing from “fire” can not collapse at free- fall rate unless the resistance from the bottom floors is removed through explosions such as controlled demolition. Therefore WTC 7 did not collapse from “fire” but from explosions.
NIST authored the impossible. They said that fires brought WTC 7 down, at free fall rate, although a steel- structured building has never collapsed from fire. NIST emphatically maintained this explanation despite explaining that it can not explain how this happened, while agreeing, that there was a free fall element to the collapse of 2.25 seconds, which means that there must have been explosions.
A free- fall aspect to the collapse means that the bottom floors and supports were totally removed. How else could NIST explain free- fall? There is no resistance, because the floors have been removed. Where did they go? Where did all that structure holding the buildings up disappear to? What kicked the feet from under the building?
NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder stated “WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fires.”
Sunder also said there were no witnesses to large explosions. Co-author of the NIST report, John Gross said that there was no evidence of molten steel, which would have been indicative of explosions. On both accounts, neither NIST representative was telling the truth; as there were witnesses to both explosions and to molten steel.
The intelligent NIST response would be, let’s try a new hypothesis, since this hypothesis about fire doesn’t work. Maybe, fire was not the culprit, as Building 7 was not hit by airplanes with jet fuel. These fires were small office fires on a few floors. Maybe, we need a new hypothesis like explosions caused by controlled demolition with the use of nano thermite. Could this cause a steel-structured high- rise to come down in its on footprint, at a free fall rate? NIST did not test for explosives; they said they were not asked. In fact, they said there was no evidence of explosions, although there were 118 fire fighters who heard or saw explosions in the WTC complex.
This is a case where an apparent strange and wicked brew is being fed the American public. It is extremely difficult to believe that these scientists could be so ignorant, unless as others have pointed out, there task was not scientific at all, but political. Political motives could say there were no witnesses to explosions, when there were over 100 witnesses to explosions. Political motives could also say that Building 7 came down from fire, even though steel- structured high-rises do not come down from fire because fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel. Backed into a corner by David Chandler, NIST did say they did not understand how Building 7 could come down at free fall, but nevertheless kept to their hypothesis that fire brought the building down, although they know it doesn’t and can’t at a free fall rate.
NIST produced a miracle report with their fire hypothesis, if sincere and accurate, as the laws of physics had been inverted by their meticulous scientific work or they produced a lie and totally manipulated the facts and created an impossible scenario to appear possible for ulterior motives, and possibly political expedience.
Just one or two witnesses to explosions should have caused a stir but the cacophony of 118 separate witnesses from NYFD, from the guys closest to the action, was deafening, for the administration’s pencil pushing, computer- modeling scientists. Therefore, this alarming fact to some particular interests was silenced. Instead NIST spent millions of dollars and six years doing computer simulations to see if they could do a reenactment of WTC 7 collapse, indicating fire was the cause of the collapse. Their reenactment doesn’t look anything like the real event.
Since NIST stated that no one asked them to look for explosions as a hypothesis to explain how the building collapsed, it maybe appropriate to ask NIST who asked them to utilize the least likely hypothesis, that fire brought the building down, and to disregard the most likely hypothesis that explosions through controlled demolitions brought the building down.
This lack of 9/11candor was also evident in the 9/11 Commission Report, also known as the Kean Commission report. The report did not mention the 118 fire fighter statements, as well as statements from police, first responders and civilians who heard explosions at the WTC site. The 9/11 Commission Report, presented as the authoritative word on what happened; served as a justification for a war of aggression, and for radical removal of civil liberties. It did not even mention the collapse of Building 7 which if not for 9/11, that collapse alone would have been a story heard around the world in its own right.
Making the WTC 7 event even more mysterious is that BBC reporter Jane Standley, on the air live in NYC with the NYC sky line behind her, confirmed with BBC reporter Phil Hayton, who was in London, that WTC 7 had just collapsed. This was a miracle in precognition as WTC 7 was still standing, as Standley pronounced that WTC 7 had collapsed. WTC 7 stood in the sky line, right behind her, during the live television transmission, and stood for another 26 minutes until it suddenly collapsed at 5:20 p.m. Ironically, Standley’s news feed with London was disconnected unceremoniously 5 minutes before WTC 7 actually collapsed. Who would have insider information that Building 7 with only modest office fires on a few floors, would collapse?
A key witness to the explosions in Building 7 was Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of Emergency Service Department for NYC Housing Authority. He responded to Mayor Giuliani’s NYC Control Center on the 23 rd floor of Building 7 at approximately 9:10 am, only to already find it mysteriously evacuated. He was told via telephone to leave. Before he could get out of the building, giant explosions went off and trapped him and the City Counsel Michael Hess inside the building. Jennings describes how the stairwell between the 6th and 7th floors was blown out from under him, leaving him dangling until he could pull himself up. He spoke of two unsuccessful rescue attempts by the fire department, which had to retreat twice at 9:59 a.m. when the South Tower collapsed and again at 10:28 a.m. when the North Tower collapsed. Eventually, he was rescued and lead out of WTC 7 though the lobby which was totally unrecognizable and filled with dead bodies he had to step over. This was the morning hour still when Jennings was able to get out of WTC 7 which collapsed approximately 6 hours later at 5:20 p.m.
Barry Jennings was a very credible witness to bombings inside Building 7. He was trapped there because of explosions which blew out his escape route. His statements of explosions, however, were directly at odds with those of NIST and their fire hypothesis. Barry Jennings inexplicably died two days before the release of the NIST report.
Even Larry Silverstein, who held a ground lease for the site of WTC 7 and WTC Towers from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said he told a fire commander that maybe the smartest thing to do was to pull the building (WTC 7). Silverstein stated that they made the decision to pull the building and watched it collapse. He would later explain that by pull, he meant to pull the firemen from around the building, not to pull the building. But within the context of his statement it appears obvious that he meant to pull, or bring down WTC 7.
What is the importance of whether the Twin Towers and WTC 7 came down from fire or explosions? The difference is so huge that it is earth shattering. It is monumental. This fact could literally turn the world on its axis, and our Country upside down or right side up.
Here is the difference. If the Buildings came down because of explosions, this would mean that a crew of demolition experts would have had to gain access to the buildings for a number of weeks or even longer to properly set the synchronistic cutter charges and rig the explosions, so that the buildings would collapse in the timely, simultaneous and symmetrical manner in which they did. This would strongly suggest this crew were professionals in controlled demolition and have insider help or be insiders themselves. The buildings had security, which means that the security was breached. Securacom later known as Stratesec as well as Kroll Associates were involved in providing security for the World Trade Center Complex, (WTC) Marvin Bush, George Bush’s younger brother had been director and his cousin Wirt Walker was the CEO of Stratesec. Jerome Hauer was managing director for Kroll Associates. A staunch Zionist, he was also director of NYC Emergency Management which headquarters he had located on the 23rd floor of WTC 7. On September 11, 2001 Hauer advised the White House to start taking Cipro an antibiotic which is effective against anthrax, a week before the first anthrax attacks occurred.
WTC 7 housed CIA, U.S. Secret Service’s, largest field office, the IRS, including corporate tax fraud records of Enron. It also housed the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) containing 3,000 to 4,000 files investigating stock fraud records including some records on World Com, and other important companies including Citi Bank. Since it appears that nano thermite was utilized, and is available only from highly secure military related facilities, another sinister and serious dimension would be added to the crimes. The suspects, the19 Arabs quickly identified after 9/11 by the Bush administration and presented to the 9/11 Commission as fact would now have company in a line up of new suspect possibilities. The manner in which the Buildings came down from fire, and not controlled demolition explosions, represented as fact by the Bush Administration, and the “official” government reports, would now be challenged. Administration officials and representatives in the Project for a New American Century,(PNAC), neo conservatives who promulgated a year before 9/11 in the policy document entitled “Rebuilding American Defenses”, (RAD) that the process in creating a global military for the American empire would take a long time absent a “catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor”, could now be cast not only as persons of interest, but as possible suspects and co conspirators in the murder of 3,000 Americans and for treason against the United States of America.
The question whether 9/11 was an inside job or a partial inside job would now become a legitimate and reasonable line of inquiry when investigating these crimes. Law enforcement would be asked to investigate possible rogue elements within government itself.
NIST appears to have been obligated by political expediency to make such dubious reports and to explain their reports with impossible science, or else this new scenario with new suspects, home grown, comes to the forefront. NIST actually accomplished thus far its goal, through the assistance of the main stream media and law enforcement’s failure to properly investigate 9/11 for the past eleven years. The goal of NIST appears to be to hide the truth from the American people. Hiding the truth, also appears to be the goal of the 9/11 Commission. Regardless of the government’s reports, WTC 7’s symmetrical and free-fall collapse into its own footprint remains the “smoking gun” which can not be explained with the present government hypothesis.