Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Does New Footage of WTC 7's Collapse Disprove Controlled Demolition Theories?

Recently, previously unreleased footage of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC7 surfaced on the internet. At first details were sparse, but more details have now came to the surface thanks to the work of James Corbett of

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog had this to say in regard to the WTC 7 footage:

"Observations: WTC-7 does not collapse neatly into its own footprint; you can see that it starts straight down but the south side shows less resistance and the building topples in that direction. Which means that the Troofers were right all along; the building should have (and did) collapse asymmetrically towards the area of most damage. On WTC-1, note the debris hitting WTC-7."

No, WTC 7 does not collapse into its own footprint, a more accurate statement is, as WTC states:

"The pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building."

Take a look for yourself.

Here is what the FEMA report had to say:

"The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion… The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.)"

The fact that the building slumped to the south side has been known from other videos such as this one for a long time, this video is just a better view.

Pat says:

"You can see that it starts straight down. The building should have (and did) collapse asymmetrically."

No, the building collapsed in a nearly-symmetrical fashion. As Dr. Steven Jones notes in his paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?":

"A near-symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling” of many of the support columns. The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the 'official' theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires."

Even the August 21, 2008 final report on WTC 7 from NIST didn't claim the collapse was asymmetrical. From the GeorgeWashington blog:

"NIST lamely tried to explain the symmetrically collapse as follows:

WTC 7’s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

NIST can't have it both ways. If the exterior frame was so stiff and strong, then it should have stopped the collapse, or - at the very least - we would have seen a bowing effect where tremendous opposing forces were battling each other for dominance in determining the direction of the fall. See also this. In real life, the thick structural beams and 'stiff [and strong]' exterior frame used in the building should have quickly stopped any partial collapse, unless the support columns were all blown. At the very worst, we should see a 1 or 2 floor partial collapse."

Of course the SW corner damage from floors 8 to 18 must be considered when trying to figure out why the building had a southward slump, but again there is a distinction between a southward slump and an asymmetrical collapse, see examples here.

This is also not to confuse this issue for an explanation for the collapse, as is suggested by Pat when he tells us to "note the debris hitting WTC-7." As I pointed out before regarding the August 21, 2008 final report by NIST:

The geniuses at NIST have now shown, after their three-year research efforts, that fire can collapse a skyscraper into its own footprint at nearly freefall speed. The 9/11 "debunkers" tried much harder, bringing up the "massive hole" in the building. The same massive hole described here:

"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though." -former NYPD officer and first responder, Craig Bartmer

Even NIST now admits that "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse."

Of course the diesel fuel for WTC 7's emergency generators was something that seemed to have some promise, but no. They state that, the diesel fuel "played no role in the destruction of WTC 7," and that it was "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building," and that they were "similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings."

The newly released video also shows a good view of what has long pointed out are "streamers suggestive of demolition charges that emerged from the facade, halfway through Building 7's 6.5-second plunge."

Of course there are many other points that can be raised to support the theory that WTC 7 was brought down due to controlled demolition, but I'll just leave you with this from my interview, Debunking the "9/11 Debunkers" With Stewart Bradley:

"Even after directing them to the WPI Study, cleverly buried in Appendix C of the FEMA report, which details the WTC steel being 'melted like swiss cheese' by temperatures impossible by burning jet fuel in a diffuse environment, the debunkers still stubbornly insist that does not 'prove' the use of a thermite type demolition charge. Although they can offer no alternative hypothesis to explain this phenomena, trying to convince them of any foul play on 9/11 is like banging your head against a wall."