Total Pageviews

Sunday, September 20, 2015

Remembering Building 7

(first posted on September 11th, 2015) 

On this day fourteen years ago, the Twin Towers in New York City were struck and collapsed into their own footprint, symmetrically and at near free-fall speed. This event will be remembered and commemorated for many generations to come, as it should.

It is also well known that the whys and wherefores of this event are still hotly debated. Today I propose that we leave the towers be. Let us even be generous and accept for today that these towers did indeed collapse because they were struck by airplanes. After all, this seems quite conceivable and logical and to most people it is even so obvious as to be beyond question. Fair enough.

Let us instead turn our attention to BUILDING 7.

You might not know this – or you might have forgotten – but WTC Building 7 also collapsed on 9-11, and it also collapsed SYMMETRICALLY, AT NEAR FREE-FALL SPEED INTO ITS OWN FOOTPRINT.  Only difference is, Building 7 was not hit by anything in particular, certainly not by an airplane. How about that? How to explain this? Or is this one also beyond question?

The official government explanation (provided by NIST – the National Institute of Standards and Technology) is the following: Building 7 collapsed due to fires fuelled by office furnishings. Per this theory,  fires, which started near the top of the building, spread out and generated such heat that steel members throughout the building were weakened and a progressive collapse ensued.

Let’s begin with the widest possible angle and simply look at statistics, after all, there are high rise buildings ALL OVER THE WORLD, so it must be very likely that some precedence can be found. The first question has to be then: in the history of high-rise buildings, are there other examples of near free-fall, symmetrical collapse due to fire? Let’s not even confine it to local fires in the building, just any fire. The answer: none.  (if you purport to have found an example,  the collapse must be symmetrical, at or near free-fall speed, and due to fire, not a controlled demolition).

So here we have NIST proposing a theory that is able to explain only ONE out of probably THOUSANDS of data points (there have probably been thousands high-rise fires). Only ONE data point.  And that one data point happens to be Building 7. It doesn’t correlate with any other data. It just stands on its own (pun intended). This is what is called an ANOMALY.

So we have a theory that explains an anomaly. For this theory to work, we must accept that this New York City high-rise was so poorly designed that it probably failed to meet most if not all fire safety codes for structures, as well as redundancy requirements for structural members (i.e. if one column collapses there must be another one to support the load). And we must furthermore accept that office furnishings created an inferno so extreme that the steel members ACROSS THE WHOLE BUILDING were weakened to such an extent that a progressive collapse could take place. We must also accept that the progressive collapse occurred with all resistance cleared out of the path of collapse (somehow) as the building dropped into its footprint; in other words, the steel was so weakened that it could not absorb ANY of the kinetic energy of the collapsing superstructure (this is needed for a free-fall collapse). All of this is the consequence of accepting the NIST theory.

Still comfortable?

At this point we have not even mentioned the publicly available eye-witness testimonies of multiple first responders who claim to have seen molten steel  in the basement of Building 7 (later confirmed independently by RJ Lee Company and USGS in forensic analysis). If we wish to discard their testimony (as NIST did) we must ask ourselves what disqualifies the testimony? If we choose to disqualify this testimony we must accept that the witnesses are lying. And then we must ask the question: not why ONE witness would lie, but why they would ALL lie, in the same way? If they are all lying in the same way, then that is a CONSPIRACY -  by definition. So we must therefore accept this conspiracy theory (still comfortable with that?).

Until a good theory is proposed that explains all or most available data, we have a story not a theory. Until such a time, we must ask questions.

Those who ask questions are called TRUTHERS. I don't like this appellation. For me there are two kinds of people: those who reason things through to their logical conclusion; and then all the rest: from those who stop halfway because they can’t be fucked; to those who stop as soon as it gets uncomfortable.

It has not always been so, but in this day and age we are still free to think what we wish to think. That’s our right. However, it is not our right to set in motion or lend support to policies that set in motion events that affect millions of lives, all based on thinking that can be demonstrated quite easily and sensibly to be erroneous. The world changed after 9-11.

At the very least, it must be admitted that the question of Building 7 has not been proven by NIST beyond a shadow of doubt. In any court of law, with NIST as the prosecution, the engineers and designers of Building 7 would be EASILY acquitted. In fact, this case wouldn’t even make it to court. And we all know that.

What is the truth? Well, that’s not for me to say, but one thing is certain, it sure as hell isn’t what we’ve been told.

You cannot build peace on a foundation of lies.

In honour of the men and women who died on 9-11, let us  find out the TRUTH.

Architects and Engineers: Solving the Mystery of Building 7

Structural Aspects of Building 7's Collapse: Why the NIST Report is Non-explanatory by Tony Szamboti