Saturday, December 31, 2016

Alex Jones Historic NYE 2016 Broadcast

New Year's Eve in Germany

New Year's Eve in Germany by debunkerbuster

Debunking 9/11 Debunking

Note: I strongly disagree with some of Griffin's research, such as his analysis of the phone calls from the planes on 9/11 and the Pentagon crash. However, his book does an excellent job in regard to the destruction of the WTC Towers and lack of air defense on 9/11.

Based on David Ray Griffin's book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" and brilliantly rebuts Popular Mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory, and shows how their arguments do not stand up to empirical analysis. Pointing out that most objections to the alternative theory, according to which 9/11 was an inside job, are based on purely a priori arguments and a propagandistic use of the term "conspiracy theory," he shows that if we get empirical about 9/11, we can quickly see that the official story cannot be true.

2016 Year In Review

Donald Trump 1998 Audio - Make Hip Hop Great Again! Calls Method Man

Friday, December 30, 2016

9/11 Truth Versus The BBC

BREAKING: Bilderberg Website Hacked! Elites Put On Notice

   /  /  _   __      _   _  __
  /--/ / / /   /_/ /_/ / //   /_/
 /  / /-/ /__ /  \/__]/-//__ /  \

0x? HackBack movement
AnD AnonyMous

===============[ present ]================

=== Message to the People ===
SInCe the Advent of Time, huMans have long forgotten to love and CaRe for eaCh other.
In TheiR egoist, selfish driven minds, a coUpLe of people have managed to get the Power and abuse it against the weakz.
HiStorY is repEating Itself.
TheRe is no EqualiTy between humans on world scale and So called HumAN Rights ArE nothiNg more than an Illusion.
The Globalization and World order system is faVorinG this unbearable situation, at least it IS for huMans-caRers.
whatS going On today: weak PeoPles suffer, die or livE in poVerty to serve upper interestS.
EmPoweRed ElitE plays the world BIG Guys.
This World order is conduCted by grouPs which are composed of WeALthy 1% uber-Elite and CorrUpted empowered Politicians.
DoNt follOw theIr proPagaNda sayIng this situation Is not TruE or Paranoia-driven.
post cold-war LiberaL capitalism has managed tO wideSpreAd *IDEA* that $$$ equals hapiness and should be a lifegoal for the 99%. An egoist goal.
ThIs system also sEttleD durably dOminance of ThesE groups.
they told Us "yOu GoT To worK hard!" TheY don't. Inheriting powerS from their Parents and these groups of "FriEnds".
ThEre Is no suCces sTories sorry: would TOp100 richEst persons alive still been riCh if thEy were born in Africa from poor pArents, No.
ThEse whole grouPs and iNterests are driVen by tHe evil idea that some HuMans (them) are superiorS to others (you).
ThE CurRent sysTem will keep them in place, in good positions and for a good amoUnT of Time.
YOuR CHildrEN stand NO CHANCE aGainst theirs. whatEver schools you put theM in.

NoW() is the time you need to think
NoW() is the time we nEed to put an end to this altogether
As you mAy havE guessEd thIs fight is INequal
PoWeR is in the hand of ThesE groupS
But not All hope is lost
We, the free people, wiLl fIght for You without even asking
But we need mOre than this: we beg you supPort
WiThoUt you, the public, We cAnT do nothing
LiSten to yoUr heart, see the situation and do what you shoUld
YoU *CAN* makE the world a better place

=== Message to the WealthY Elitico-Political 1% RIChEst dominant pricks ===
WoRDs are not enOugh To TeLl you how much we dispiTe you and your dominant behAvior
No HumAns stanD above otheRs and you WIll have to learn IT
Dear Bilderberg mEmBers, From NoW(), each OnE of you have 1 year (365 days) to truly work in faVor of HumaNs and not youR private interests
Each TopIc you disCuss or work you achieve thRough YoUr uber privAte meetinGs should from now benefit WORlD population and not X or Y groUp of people
OtHerWIse, we will FinD you and we Will hAck you
MiNd the cuRrent situation: We conTrol your expensive connected cars, we control your connecteD house security devices, we control your daughter laptop, we control your wife's mobile,
we tape YoUR seCret meetings, we reAD your emaiLs, we control your faVoriTe eScort girl smartWatch, we ARe inside your beLoved banks and we Are reading YoUr assets
You wont be safe anywhere near electricty anyMore
We WiLL watch yOu, from NoW on you got to WoRk for Us, Humanity, the People

====================== [ greets ]=========================

CheErs to PhineAs Fisher, you Re one of the GreatEst hUmaN alive


Trump Ignores Obama's Obvious Trap, Praises Putin on Sanctions

Obama's Insane Russia Meltdown: The REAL Reason, In 5 Minutes

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Another Milestone: 2,750 Architects & Engineers

A few days ago we surpassed the milestone of 2,750 architects and engineers — adding another 250 signatories to our petition since last April!

To reflect on the significance of this achievement, I would like to share with you a selection of statements (shown below) from the courageous architects and engineers who, since the previous milestone, have signed our petition demanding a new investigation of the World Trade Center’s destruction on 9/11...
Onward and upward to higher heights in 2017! 

Richard Gage, AIA
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
“I'm a chemical engineer with bachelors and masters degrees in engineering from the University of Michigan. I'm an authority on the flammability of materials and I have testified in court on this subject. WTC 7 was demolished with explosives attached to the structural frame. Hardly anything in the building was flammable; it was mostly steel, glass, and masonry.” — Bruce Caswell

“My experience has included being president of three different architectural firms in Michigan and New England. My outrage and shock at being asked to believe the net of lies surrounding this event matches the feelings of the founding members of AE911Truth. As I watched the towers fall on television, I knew the rapid destruction on display made no scientific sense. Though the tentacles of this subject run in every direction, this betrayal of our national confidence and honor as citizens must not be allowed to stand.” — Paul R. Bilgen, AIA

“I'm a licensed architect familiar with structural steel design. When considering the yield point of A36 steel and the redundancy factors included in all 21st century buildings, these buildings could not have been collapsed by an airplane of any kind. This was obvious to me at the time I saw the collapse on television. When the first building came down I told my wife that ‘airplanes cannot make that happen.’" — John C. Heflebower

“I have 30 years of diverse design and on-site experience in the engineering field. My most relevant credentials are my extensive experience in computer simulation of structures and mechanical components. I recently reviewed much of the documentation that AE911Truth has supplied and also other sources. My conclusion, based on my engineering experience and intuition, is that structures that are struck in a random nature do not respond with the type of symmetry we see in the WTC towers collapse. In fact, if one were hypothetically tasked to collapse these towers as symmetrically as they fell, it would be nearly impossible, at least for someone without expertise in demolition or other advanced techniques.” — Attilio Colangelo

“I have twenty-seven years experience as an engineer, the past eighteen of which have been as an independent consultant. During my career, I have developed a specialty in analyzing and addressing residential and commercial buildings with structural problems. It’s taken a long time for me to come to terms with the real possibility that the true causes of the WTC collapses on 9/11 were obscured from the general public and perhaps much worse. We must know the truth, because what’s left of our democracy depends on it.” — Richard Herschiag

“I have worked in almost every city in NY. I have been licensed 24 years doing a variety of work from residential to industrial. I was on the phone with another architect on 9/11. We both noted the flashes on the floors below the collapsing floor when the towers came down. Two years laterI was involved in demolishing six buildings in Kodak Park. I realized it was like watching 9/11 all over again. I have no doubt that WTC was controlled demolition. If the mast was not controlled it would have been a sideways fall killing 10,000 more.” — James Myers

“I've been involved in construction all my professional life. I've seen controlled demolitions, and from the day of 9/11/01 watching the towers come down, I knew it had to be a controlled demolition. For the government to not even investigate this possibility in a serious way is beyond unbelievable.” — Thomas Kahler

“I have fifteen years experience in defense and private industry engineering and project management. Recognizing that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were instances of controlled demolition is not the hard part. The hard part is overcoming the emotional hurdle that our government betrayed us. I went into shock and had to grieve when I accepted this. As a country we need to face this anger and grief if we are to come to terms with ourselves and leave a legacy we can reconcile with.” — Ben Werner

“I have a Bachelor of Architecture and a Master of Architectural (Structural) Engineering. I remember being very surprised by the collapse of the Twin Towers after the planes struck. Despite the damage and fires, it did not seem possible. I also remember reports of Building 7 being evacuated because it was expected to come down from sustained damage. I accepted the explanations given by the media. It wasn’t until years later that I started examining the research of experts on this and other websites and rethinking my discomfort with the official account. From an understanding of steel failure, I would expect any collapse to be gradual and asymmetric. If the official story were true, it would be a major embarrassment to the US design and construction industry that these towers failed so catastrophically, especially Building 7. I want to stand on the right side of history. We all deserve a real investigation with subpoena power, that explores every possibility.” — Forrest Mertz

Monday, December 26, 2016


The Conservative Tribune reports, Well, here are a few well-checked facts for you… Snopes — neutral, reliable, trustworthy Snopes — is a quagmire of embezzling, pot-smoking licentious greed. There, I’ve said it, but I don’t feel one bit better. Founder (with wife Barbara) David Mikkelson is embroiled in a legal battle following their highly contentious divorce last year. Barbara claims that David embezzled $98,000 in company funds, took private trips and paid for prostitutes as a business expense, and that he put his mistress, Elyssa Young, now his wife, on the payroll, according to the U.K. Daily Mail.

The Third Tower - BSA Space - Dec. 16, 2016 - Richard Gage, AIA

AE911Truth founder and CEO Richard Gage, AIA, provides an overview of the evidence related to the collapse of WTC 7 on December 16, 2016, at the BSA Space, home of the Boston Society of Architects.

The Third Tower - BSA Space - Dec... by debunkerbuster

Saturday, December 24, 2016

FREE Norad Santa Tracker

You can track Santa with the FREE Norad Santa Tracker! Watch him travel around the world delivering presents to sleeping children.

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Debunking MTV’s “2017 Resolutions for White Guys” - Leftist Weaponized Race Baiting Video Fails Miserably

Dsglop Debunked

Snopes Fact Checker Accused Of Fraud For Prostitute Embezzlement Scheme


NIST heated the floor beams, but not the slab. Since concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel, leaving this expansion out of the calculations of the failure of the shear studs is fraudulent.


By Chris Sarns
Chris Sarns
Chris Sarns
Part 1 of Chris Sarns’ report, regarding the burned-out fire in WTC 7, is available here.
Part 2 (below) was originally published on June 10, 2013.
NOTE: Quotes from NIST's WTC 7 reports are shown in Bold Light Blue.

NIST used numerous unscientific methods and fraudulent inputs to get the key girder to fail in its computer simulation.
For example, NIST arbitrarily added 10% to the temperature results of its fire dynamics simulation (FDS).
“Case A used the temperature data as obtained from the FDS simulation. Case B increased the Case A gas temperatures by 10 percent.” — NCSTAR 1A, page 32 [PDF page 74]
“[O]nly the fire-induced damage produced by Case B temperatures was carried forward as the initial condition for the building collapse analysis.” — NCSTAR 1A, page 36 [PDF page 78]
To get the shear studs on the floor beams to fail, NIST had to assume high steel temperatures. It applied the heat in 1½ seconds over the entire northeast part of Floor 13. This faulty method of calculating temperatures, though, does not allow for the reality of heat dispersal or for the inevitable beam sagging.
Interestingly, NIST's model heated the floor beams but not the concrete slab. Since concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel, leaving this expansion out of the calculations of the shear studs failure is fraudulent.
“The girder and beam temperatures were assumed to be 500° C and 600° C, respectively, and the slab was assumed to remain unheated.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1, page 349 [PDF page 393]
“Ramping of the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, leveling off at temperatures of 600° C for the beams and 500° C for the girder at 2.6 s. These temperature histories were prescribed uniformly for all nodes of the beams and the girder, respectively.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1, page 352 [PDF page 396]
“The first failures observed were of the shear studs, which were produced by axial expansion of the floor beams, and which began to occur at fairly low beam temperature of 103° C. . . . When the beam temperatures had reached 300° C, all but three shear studs in the model had failed due to axial expansion of the beams, leaving the top flanges of the beams essentially unrestrained laterally.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1, page 352 [PDF page 396]
“This analysis demonstrated possible failure mechanisms that were used to develop the leading collapse hypothesis further. The failure modes in this model were incorporated into the 16-story ANSYS and 47-story LS-DYNA analyses.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1, page 353 [PDF page 397]
NIST assumed that it took 90 minutes for the fires—which it said were started by burning debris from WTC 1 some 350 feet away—to develop into a 2MW (megawatt) fire.
“The choice of a 2 MW fire at 12:00 noon was a somewhat arbitrary initialization of the simulations, but there is little visual evidence of how the fires behaved in the time period between 10:28:22 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. . . . starting the calculations at noon was convenient in that the simulation time was the same as the actual clock time.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, page 377 [PDF page 443]
In NIST's scenario, the damage and the collapse would have occurred at 4:00 p.m.
“The building response is examined at 3.5 h and 4.0 h of heating. At 3.5 h, the floor systems had fire-induced damage and failures of some connections, beams, and girders. After 4.0 h of heating, there was substantially more damage and failures in the WTC 7 structural floor system, particularly in the northeast region surrounding Column 79. The structural condition at these two times illustrates how the structure developed sufficient fire-induced damage to reach the collapse initiation event.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, page 493 [PDF page 559]
Building Response at 4.0 h
“On Floor 13 (Figure 11–35), all four of the north-south girders attached to Columns 79, 80, and 81 had failed, due to either buckling or girder walk off of the bearing seat at Columns 79 and 81.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, page 504 [PDF page 570]
“Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. . . . This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support, and as a consequence, the column buckled eastward, becoming the initial local failure for collapse initiation.” — NCSTAR 1A, page 22 [PDF page 64]
fig 11 35e
Figure 11-35. Damage state of connections, beams, and girders on Floor 13 at 4.0 h for Case B temperatures.
NIST assumed that all the expansion would occur on one end of the floor beams, which is quite impossible. Furthermore, NIST failed to account for beam sag that would have prevented the floor beams from expanding lengthwise more than 5.392 inches at 600° C even if all the expansion were on one end.
Table 10-1 shows that the floor beams under floor 13 did not exceed 600° C in the northeast section.
Without loss of length due to sagging, at 600° C the floor beams would have expanded 5.517 inches, which is why NIST said that the seat was only 11 inches wide in the final report. Had NIST taken sag into consideration, it would have shortened the beams by 1/8 inch, to 5.392 inches at 600° C — not enough to cause failure, even if the seat were only 11 inches wide.
“A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, page 527 [PDF page 593]
An errata published by NIST in 2012 corrected the “mistake” (about the width of the column seat) that had been made in the final report.
“The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 12 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 6.25 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.” See June 2012 Text Changes to the NIST Reports.
By acknowledging that the seat was in fact 12 inches wide, NIST is admitting that thermal expansion could not have caused the girder to fail; therefore, its hypothesis fails.
Note that the maximum expansion is 5.728 inches at 654° C, because loss due to sagging exceeds elongation due to thermal expansion after that.
Chart Expansion vs AISC 2
As shown in the graph, structural steel sags as temperature rises, decreasing its length and negating the thermal expansion that NIST blames for the collapse of WTC 7.
But the impossibilities don't stop there. Another thing that makes walk-off impossible is that even if the floor beams could have expanded 6.25 inches on one end and even if no sagging had occurred, the side plate on column 79 would have prevented the girder from falling off its seat. The girder would have expanded in length until it was pressing up against the column between the side plates.
NIST ignored its own finding:
“Temperatures were uniform (within 1° C) across the bottom flange and web, but the top flange temperature was less by up to several hundred degrees because the slab acted as a heat sink.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, page 391 [PDF page 457]
Thermal expansion would cause the bottom flange to expand more than the top flange, forcing the beam to bow downward. The NIST hypothesis does not allow for downward bowing.
But NIST said that the critical damage occurred at temperatures below 400° C.
“The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 collapse sequence was the buckling of Column 79. This buckling arose from a process that occurred at temperatures at or below approximately 400° C (750° F).” — NCSTAR 1A, page 21 [PDF page 63]
“Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79.” — NCSTAR 1A, page 22 [PDF page 64]
In the temperature and sag spread sheet above, 400° C would expand the 53-foot floor beams only 3.3 inches.
Pursuant to a FOIA request by AE911Truth structural engineer Ron Brookman, NIST finally released the structural and shop drawings in January 2012.
Brookman went through the hundreds of drawings and found drawing 1091, which shows the girder seat was 12 inches wide (as noted above), not the 11 inches claimed in the final report. He also found drawing 9114, which shows web/flange stiffeners at the column 79 end of the girder between column 44 and 79.
NIST omitted these web/flange stiffeners that would have prevented the bottom flange from folding as required for their collapse to begin. The girder would have to be pushed almost all the way off the seat, not just half way, before the bottom flange would buckle.
“Walk-off failure of beams and girders was defined to occur when. . . . the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. . . . [T]he beam was assumed to have lost support, as the flexural stiffness of the bottom flange was assumed to be insufficient for transferring the gravity loads.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, page 488 [PDF page 554]
The web/flange stiffeners are on the Frankel drawings, but not on the NIST drawings in the final report.
Thanks to the persistence of researcher David Cole, NIST admitted that they omitted the web/flange stiffeners. See:
wtc7 seat connect at col 79
NIST’s drawing of column 79 omits the web/flange stiffeners that would have prevented the girder's failure.
col 79 stiffeners 2 1
Frankel’s original column drawings (above and below) show the 3/4” web/flange stiffeners in place.
wtc7 col 79 stiffeners

Regarding 9/11, What Qualifies As Suspicious Behavior?

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

National Geographic Debunked

What Pisses Me Off About The Berlin Christmas Market Terrorist Attack


All things being equal, the fire would have spread consistently. But the NIST computer model inexplicably bypassed the offices to the southwest of column 79, burned around column 79 on the east side, and then, two hours later, burned the offices to the southwest of column 79.


By Chris Sarns
Chris Sarns
Chris SarnsEditor’s Note: To this day, most people, including many architects and engineers, are not aware that a third skyscraper, World Trade Center Building 7, mysteriously collapsed a few hours after the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. The official report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on this building’s collapse has been challenged by many reputable and credentialed technical professionals. They point out that the NIST analysis has not undergone the rigors of scientific peer review — the typical pathway for validating significant scientific theories.
Chris Sarns’ research appears in Dr. David Ray Griffin’s book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7. Sarns has been deeply involved in the work of AE911Truth, where he provides his expertise on WTC 7.
The studies in this five-part series, written for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and originally published between May and September 2013, represent years of work that Sarns did in unraveling some of the most glaring inconsistencies and outright frauds in the NIST report on World Trade Center 7. He demonstrates that NIST’s theory of a fire-induced collapse of Building 7 is faulty and misleading. The destruction of this skyscraper on September 11 was truly unprecedented in the history of high-rise buildings.
Part 1 of Sarns' series (below) was first published in May 2013, when close to 2,000 architects and engineers at AE911Truth were demanding a new investigation. By December 2016, the number of A/E petition-signers had swelled to nearly 2,750.

In this five-part series, I will expose and disprove NIST's false claims in five critically important areas:
  1. BURNED-OUT FIRE — The timing of the fire on Floor 12 exposes NIST's false claim that fire led to the collapse.
  2. MAGICAL THERMAL EXPANSION — NIST used numerous unscientific methods and fraudulent inputs to get the key girder to fail in its computer simulation.
  3. MISSING SHEAR STUDS — NIST’s claim in its Final Report about the lack of shear studs on the floor support girder between columns 44 and 79 is exposed.
  4. FICTITIOUS DEBRIS DAMAGE — The fictitious “10-story gouge” claimed early on by NIST in WTC 7’s south face is exposed.
  5. NON-EXISTENT DIESEL FUEL FIRE — NIST’s fraudulent diesel fuel fire hypothesis is exposed.
NOTE: Quotes from NIST's WTC 7 reports are shown inBold Light Blue.

The timing of the fire on Floor 12 exposes NIST's false claim that fire led to the collapse.
Below, the four images in the middle column are photographs taken of World Trade Center 7 at four different times in the afternoon of September 11, 2001.
The four graphics in the left column are my approximations, using the photographs as a guide, of where—and at what times—a fire was actually burning on Floor 12.
And the four graphics in the right column are NIST's ANSYS computer model of where the fires were burning in the building at the same four times.
“Note that only window glass breaking times were prescribed in the fire model. The observed fire activity gleaned from the photographs and video were not a model input.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, page 378 [PDF page 444]
NIST will not release the input data because doing so, it claims, might “jeopardize public safety.”
Floor 12 fire sim 701

Quotes and photographs from the NIST reports on the collapse of WTC 7

Quotes on the spreading of the fire:
“On those floors that were mostly subdivided into offices (such as Floors 11 and 12), the fire would have grown within a single office, reaching flashover within several minutes. After about 5 to 15 min, the ceiling tile system would have failed from the heat, and the hot air would have flowed over the office wall. Soon the hot air would fail the ceiling of an adjacent office, and eventually the thermal radiation would ignite the contents in this office. Fire spread would have been similar for offices separated by a corridor, although this would have taken longer, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way.” — NCSTAR 1A, page 19 [PDF page 61]
“The mass of the furnishings per office was not known” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1, page 60 [PDF page 104]
“[T]he average combustible fuel load on the 11th and 12th floors was estimated as 32 kg/m2.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, page 376 [PDF page 442]
All things being equal, the fire would have spread consistently. But in the NIST computer model, the fire inexplicably bypassed the offices to the southwest of column 79, burned around column 79 on the east side, and then, two hours later, burned the offices to the southwest of column 79.
“Fires . . . on Floors 11 to 13 persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min.” — NCSTAR 1A, page 47 [PDF page 89]
Photos showing progression of fire:
“From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Looking from southeast corner to the south face.
Fire on floor 12;[1] area above covered with smoke.
Fire on floors 11-12[1] moved to east face and progressed to the north.
[1] [F]ires reported on floor 14, but photographs showed east face fires on floor 12.” — Part IIC, page 21
“Fire was first seen on the 12th floor at 2:08 p.m. toward the south end of the east face. Further south on this face, the window glass was still intact, indicating that this fire had burned in the building interior as it turned the southeast corner.” — NCSTAR 1A, page 20 [PDF page 62]
5 1141
Figure 5-114. Oblique view of the east face of WTC 7, taken at 2:08:28 p.m. +/- 1s.
“By around 2:30 p.m., the visible flames had diminished, but the fire had spread both south into the southeast corner and north, reaching two-thirds of the way to the northeast corner.” — NCSTAR 1A, page 20 [PDF page 62]
5 117
Figure 5-117. Photograph showing fires on the east face at 2:28:43 p.m. +/- 1s [34, 37 and 40 are column numbers].
Fire first appeared on the north face of Floor 12 about 80 feet from the northeast corner:
“By 3:00 p.m., the fire had spread internally past the northeast corner and onto the north face.” — NCSTAR 1A, page 20 [PDF page 62]
The fire spread internally through the offices around column 79 and under the beams, which allegedly underwent enough thermal expansion to push a girder off its seat and initiate the “global collapse” at 5:20 PM.
5 119
Figure 5-119. Photograph showing the north face of WTC 7 taken from a helicopter around 2:57 p.m. +/- 5 min.
5 121
Figure 5-121. Cropped photograph of the north face of WTC 7, taken from a helicopter around 3:05 p.m. +/- 5 min.
“In less than 15 min, the fire simultaneously spread rapidly to the east to engulf the northeast corner of the floor and more slowly westward about one-third of the way across the north face.” — NCSTAR 1A p. 20 [PDF page 62]
5 123
Figure 5-135. Cropped photograph showing the east edge of the north face and an oblique view of the east face. It was likely taken between 3:20 p.m. and 3:40 p.m.
“The fire continued spreading westward in starts and stops, approaching the northwest corner of the floor around 3:45 p.m.” — NCSTAR 1A, page 20 [PDF page 62]
Figure 5-136. Frame taken from a video shot from near the corner of Greenwich Street and Park Place showing the north face of WTC 7 between 3:49 p.m. and 3:54 p.m.
The photographs reveal that the fire on Floor 12 had progressed from the south side of the building to the north side via the interior offices by 3:00 PM and had engulfed the northeast corner by about 3:15 PM. This means that the fire in the area in question (around column 79 and under the beams and girder in the northeast corner) had burned out by about 3:50 PM, because, as noted above, the fires burned for only about 20 to 30 minutes in any given location.
Figure L-5. From June 2004 Progress Report Appendix L page 6.