World trade center building seven demolition video

The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Report into the collapse of
World Trade Center Seven is a Total Joke.

World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. On the contrary, it appears the collapse was due primarily due to a controlled demolition. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings. Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire.

On September 11, WTC 7 collapsed totally. It is suggested below that this collapse was exclusively due to fire. No significant evidence is offered to back up this suggestion (after all it is only a suggestion). It should be emphasized that WTC 7 was neither hit by an aircraft nor by significant quantities of debris from the collapse of the twin towers. It is also widely claimed that WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed mainly due to fire. I emphasize, that before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.

As you can see from the above animated-gif, the collapse of WTC 7 certainly has the appearance of a controlled demolition. But, judge for yourself, download and watch the following video clips of the demolition:

The WTC Building Seven Demolition - Video One 0.9 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 692x408 Copy.
The WTC Building Seven Demolition - Video Two 9.5 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 692x408 Copy.
The WTC Building Seven Demolition - Video Three 0.8 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 692x408 Copy.
The WTC Building Seven Demolition - Video Four 0.8 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 360x240
The WTC Building Seven Demolition - Video Five 1.1 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 542x407

If you wish to save the small animated-gif, right click on the image and select Save Image As from the menu. You can also view some short sequences of still shots from the videos by clicking here (620 KB). The most obvious feature that indicates a controlled demolition, is the almost even collapse of the building. This shows that all the supports for the structure failed at the same time. Some coincidence eh? This video evidence is so compelling that no other evidence is really necessary.

Notice, that all of the many videos of the collapse of World Trade Center Seven have been taken from the north. Many cameras were "accidently" trained on the building to capture its collapse (just like a camera was "accidently" available to capture the first planes impact with the North Tower). Also note that the raging fires of WTC 7 are for some reason not visible in these videos taken from the north. Apparently, only the southern side of WTC 7 was a blazing inferno. Yes, they really expect you to believe that only one half of the building burnt, and that this half burnt so furiously, that the whole building collapsed. How is it that there are no videos of the collapse from the southern side? How is it that there are no videos or photographs of the raging fires (that curiously only burnt on the southern side) of the building? Of course, the simplest answer is that there was no raging fire and that you are being lied to.

See Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC (with comment) for the missing section.
Figure 5-17 (below) Building damage to the southwest corner and smoke plume from south face of WTC 7, looking from the World Financial Plaza. Note damage to WFC 3 in the foreground.

Figure 5-17 is a very strange photograph. It has a number of features which immediately stand out as wrong.

Firstly, we are told that there were fires on the floors 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28, but the photo seems to have smoke pouring out of the windows on almost every floor.

Secondly, the corner offices (except for the 27th and 28th floors) show no indication of fire on the west face of the building, but these very same corner offices appear to belch smoke from their south face windows.

Thirdly, the north side of WTC 7 has few (if any) visible signs of fire at this time (for example, see Figure 5-20 below) so it seems quite impossible that the south side should be ablaze to the extent that the above photo would indicate.

All, in all, I think it quite clear that either this photo has been faked, or it is actually a picture of the dust cloud from the collapse of one of the towers. I think the second option is more probable, as it fits all the facts and allows the "oh, it looks like we made a mistake, so sorry" excuse. The dust cloud has been given its peculiar shape by the breeze channeling through the gap between the Verizon building and WTC 7. Since first writing this article, I have discovered this photo which shows a similar shaping of the WTC 2 dust cloud,

which might have been used to fake a fire at the World Financial Center, if that had proved necessary.

See Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC (with comment) for the missing section.
News coverage after 1:30 p.m. showed light-colored smoke flowing out of openings on the upper floors of the south side of the building. Another photograph (Figure 5-18) of the skyline at 3:25 p.m., taken from the southwest, shows a large volume of dark smoke coming from all but the lowest levels of WTC 7, where white smoke is emanating.

Your Ad Here

Figure 5-18 WTC 7, with a large volume of dark smoke rising from it, just visible behind WFC 1 (left). A much smaller volume of white smoke is seen rising from the base of WTC 7. Note that the lower, lighter-colored smoke (to right) is thought to be from the two collapsed towers

This photo amply demonstrates the dishonesty of the authors of this article (and of the FEMA report generally). It must have taken them some time to find a photo as misleading as this one. But since deception is the name of the game the effort to find such pictures was made.

What is so deceitful about the use of this photo, you ask?

Note that the corners of various buildings in the photo line up (WFC 1 and WTC 7 line up as do the Bankers Trust building and the apartment building in the center of the photo). These corners have been marked by red dots in the aerial photograph of Manhattan below. Draw lines through these dots and where they cross is where the photo was snapped. So we see that the above photo was taken from a boat on the Hudson and that in order to see the smoke from WTC 7 we have to look through the thick smoke from the ruins of WTC 1 and WTC 2. Very deceitful indeed.

The mode of fire and smoke spread was unclear; however, it may have been propagated through interior shafts, between floors along the south facade that may have been damaged, or other internal openings, as well as the floor slab/exterior facade connections.

It appeared that water on site was limited due to a 20-inch broken water main in Vesey Street. This is an outright lie. This is Manhattan, more fire hydrants per square meter than any other place on earth. Although WTC 7 was sprinklered, it did not appear that there would have been a sufficient quantity of water to control the growth and spread of the fires on multiple floors. Crap, there was plenty of water. In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. The people who told the firefighters not to put out the small localized fires in WTC 7 should be held liable and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That the decision was made because of damage to WTC 7 is a joke. The extent and severity of the damage to WTC 7 was so slight that it is still unknown to this day. If there had been major damage the authors of this article would have provided evidence of it. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.

See Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC (with comment) for the missing section.
Not only is it claimed that the fire burnt for 7 hours, but the hundreds of photographers who were taking photos of the ruins of the Twin Towers, never bothered to photograph this "raging" 7 hour fire at World Trade Center Seven, which was, after all, just across the street (Vesey St). I guess that a "raging" fire in a 47-story building, is such a commonplace occurrence in New York, that these photographers just ignored it, even though it was only a few hundred feet away from some of them. They just couldn't see a good story in it.

See Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC (with comment) for the missing section.
So we have that:

Power to the Twin Towers was wired from the substation in WTC 7 through two separate systems. The first provided power throughout each building; the second provided power only to the emergency systems (lifts etc). In the event of power interruption, generators at WTC 7 would normally provide the necessary power to keep the towers fully functioning. If this power was cut, or switched off, there were also six 1,200 kW emergency power generators located in the sixth basement (B-6) level of each of the towers, which provided another backup power supply. These also had normal and emergency subsystems.

In the event of fire, power would only be provided by the emergency subsystems. This was to prevent firefighters being electrocuted and new fires being igniting by arcing electric lines. Thus, with both the North and South Towers ablaze, the power to the towers would have been switched to the emergency subsystem. This provided a lower level of power, but sufficient for the use of communications equipment, elevators, emergency lighting in corridors and stairwells, and fire pumps and safety for firefighters. At this time power was still provided by the WTC 7 substation.

Con Ed reported that "the feeders supplying power to WTC 7 were de-energized at 9:59 a.m." This was due to the South Tower collapse, which occurred at the same time. One assumes that circuit breakers in the system cut off the electric supply when the collapse allowed main cables to earth. Apparently, the back-up generators started up automatically. Con Ed also reported that it was also possible for the transfer to be made manually. That is, the back-up generators could be switched on, or off, as required

Now it is implied that the generators at WTC 7 came on-line in sufficient numbers, and at sufficient power levels, to provide normal power to the towers. This seems extremely unlikely, for if true, the sudden reintroduction of normal power to the North Tower could have led to the deaths of many firefighters through electrocution (an enormous design fault). It also seems extremely unlikely, that the generators would be designed to suddenly deliver a full level of power, when only the emergency subsystem had been running at the time of their being started up. Having the generators produce copious quantities of power going nowhere (another design fault), just doesn't make sense.

So the truth is that only one or two generators started up and produced sufficient power to just supply the emergency subsystem. This means that the flow rates of fuel (quoted above by FEMA) for the generators are incorrect. Indeed, many of the generators flow rates would have been zero, as there would have been no need, or reason, to start them and the flow rates for those that did start would clearly be much lower that those quoted.

Since no firefighters were reported electrocuted we can safely conclude that the flow rate assumptions of FEMA are false. Since the whole article is predicated on the flow rate assumptions, we can write-off the main premise of this article (that the collapse of WTC 7 was probably due to fire), as false. But it is worse than that, the report is fraudulent.

Despite the lack of evidence for extensive fire at WTC 7, the FEMA report still concludes that the collapse of WTC 7 was "probably due to fire." In fact, the lack of evidence is so acute, that the FEMA report manufactures two pieces of fraudulent evidence to buttress their case. Still if one is to postulate fire at WTC 7, one has to explain how the fire might have begun. Here, the "official" tale descends into absurdity:

Unfortunately, debris from the collapse of the north tower (the closest tower) fell across the large building known as World Trade Center Six, and then across Vesey Street, and then impacted WTC 7 which is (at closest) 355 feet away from the north tower. It is worth noting that the Verizon building, which was next to WTC 7, and closer to the North Tower, was only noticeably damaged by two pieces of falling debris. Neither of these impacts caused fires, nor penetrated very far into the building.

Unfortunately, some of this debris then penetrated the outer wall of WTC 7, smashed nearly two thirds of the way through the building (some 80 to 90 feet), demolished another concrete masonry wall and then breached a fuel oil pipe that ran across the building just to the north of the masonry wall. Ridiculous? Well, this is what we are told.

Unfortunately, though most of the falling debris was cold, it manages to start a few fires in WTC 7. Sound unlikely? Well, this is what we are told.

Unfortunately, with the outbreak of a few fires in the building, and the generators supposedly still supplying power to the North Tower no decision was made to turn off the generators now supplying electricity to WTC 7. Fortunately, for the firefighters, someone did make the decision not to fight and contain the fires while they were still small, but to wait until the fires were large and out of control (if they ever actually got large). Otherwise, many firefighters may have been electrocuted while fighting the fires in WTC 7. Sound strange? Well, this is what we are told.

Unfortunately, the safety mechanism that should have shut down the fuel oil pumps upon any breaching of the fuel line, failed to work and fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the Salomon Smith Barney tanks on the ground floor onto the 5th floor where it ignited. The pumps eventually emptied the tanks, pumping some 12,000 gallons in all. Well, at least this is what we are told. To give you some idea how much diesel this is, a 12 foot by 12 foot by 12 foot tank contains more than 12,000 gallons (1 US gallon = 0.13368 cubic feet).

Unfortunately, the sprinkler system of WTC 7 malfunctioned and did not extinguish the fires. Well, at least this is what we are told.

Unfortunately, the burning diesel heated some massive steel beams (some of the biggest ever used in the construction of any office tower) to the point that they lost their structural integrity. Even though it is clearly impossible for 12,000 gallons of diesel to do this, this is what we are told.

Unfortunately, this then (somehow) caused the whole building to collapse, even though before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire.

You must agree, the "official" tale is absurd, isn't it?

Or perhaps you would prefer Eric Hufschmid's version of events:

World Trade Center Seven crumbled to the same, fine-grain powder, but it was never hit by any airplane. Supposedly one or two large tanks of diesel fuel inside the building caught on fire.

Incidently, you might wonder how the diesel tanks caught on fire. Try to devise a sensible explanation for this, or, since not many people care about Building 7, at least an amusing explanation.

For example, perhaps when the plane hit the South tower, a few office workers were sprayed with fuel, caught on fire, were blown out of the building, traveled over Building 6 and then across the road to Building 7, broke through the windows, busted through a few walls until their dead bodies reached the stairs, rolled down the stairs while still on fire, broke through a few more walls to where the tanks of diesel fuel were located, and then came to rest under the tanks where their smoldering polyester suits and nylon undergarments cooked the tanks until they burst open.

See Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC Seven (with comment) for the missing section.
5.8 Conclusion:

This report (the FEMA report) is a JOKE.

The original FEMA report can be found here.

Jeff King - WTC collapse video controlled demolition 9/11

World Trade Center 9/11 theories, photos, and video analysis

Who would put explosives in WTC? And why? - 911review

Building 7 Collapse WTC - 9/11 Review

WTC building 7 collapse or missile ? September 11

Plane video shows WTC exercise

FBI Allowed WTC Bombing - 9/11Review

WTC Plane Engine - 9-11 Review

Wtc 2 Plane Pod - 9-11Review

WTC 9/11 theories, plane photos, and video anal ysis