Counter-Arguments to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Part 2 WTC Building 7

In preparation for our meetup on December 17th, that will feature a presentation by a representative of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a detailed summary of counter-arguments to the AE9/11Truth claims that the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 has all of the characteristics of controlled demolition.

Argument: A 47 story skyscraper NOT hit by an airplane that was the third tower destroyed on September 11th.

The building was 300 feet away from an 1100 foot building that collapsed after rapidly ejecting concrete, steel and other materials.  The building was severely damaged starting at the 18th floor and extending to the top floors.  WTC 7 was clearly in the debris field of WTC 1.  WTC7 was also on fire unabated for seven hours.

Argument: The collapse of WTC 7 has all the characteristics of a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION with explosives

The “squibs” that Steve Jones claims were actually damaged structure when viewed from the South West angle.  When viewed from the south angle, it is clear the building incurred extensive damage from the falling debris.

 In conjunction with the falling debris, the fires raging for seven hours unabated and the aforementioned structural damage, there were extensive Diesel tanks for backup generators, which started pumping after the power outage that resulted when WTC 1 collapsed.  Combine diesel lines igniting, catastrophic structural damage to ¼ of the building and the “tremendous, tremendous fires going on” * and it is no wonder the FDNY pulled the firefighters out of the building an hour before it collapsed.

Firefighters on the scene were told not to try to put the fires out in WTC 7 as the structural damage was too great and the building was making creaking noises.

From Captain Chris Boyle, FDNY Engine 94:

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post” **

From Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. ***

 * [http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt]

** [ http://www.firehouse.com/stateprovince/new-york/captain-chris-boyle ]

*** [ http://www.firehouse.com/stateprovince/new-york/deputy-chief-peter-hayden]

Jones is right to say that “rapid timing between explosive squibs is also common” (often down to microseconds) but he fails to notice the much bigger timing issue in controlled demolition. Any detonations on upper floors are designed, not to bring the building down, or accelerate its progress, but to ‘teach’ the building how to collapse, once it starts descending. As such, the explosions on upper floors take place in the fractions of seconds prior to the main descent of the building, not during it.

Controlled Demolition: “The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It’s gravity that brings the building down.”

[ http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm ]

 Argument: The building falls almost straight down in about 7 seconds – and at a free-fall acceleration for 100 feet – confirmed by NIST.

According to video, falls only 18 floors in NEAR free-fall acceleration (9.1m/s^2 as opposed to 9.8m/s^2 that is acceleration rate of gravity (on this planet).  According to seismic readings from Columbia University, the tower actually fell for 18 seconds at a reading of .6 on the Richter scale.) *

* [ http://www.firehouse.com/news/news/times-sept-11-attack-wtc-collapse ]

Argument: The overall building mass falls uniformly through what was the path of greatest resistance. This requires a precisely timed, patterned removal of critical columns.

Eastern penthouse falls first, collapse not uniform.

Argument: The kink in the roofline is characteristic of a demolition timing sequence where the walls are collapsing inward symmetrically.

If the building fell inward symmetrically, then why did 1/3 of the east side of the building fall on to the building to the north east?

 Argument: The structure of a large, fireproofed steel-framed building cannot be completely destroyed by LOCALIZED POCKETS OF FIRE nor by “thermal expansion” claimed by NIST.

What about a building that was catastrophically damaged by falling debris and suffered through a 7 hour fire unabated?

Argument: A single, localized failure (a girder unseated – NIST) could not cause the systematic and total FAILURE OF 400 OTHER STRUCTURAL STEEL CONNECTIONS PER SECOND.

Normally, that may be the case.  However, according to Structure Magazine, WTC7 was built “over a pre-existing electrical substation owned by Con Edison.  The original plans for the substation included the construction of a high-rise tower above it.  However, the final footprint of WTC7 was larger than the originally planned high-rise tower. As a result, there were discontinuities between the columns in the Con Edison substation and columns for WTC7.  Braced frames, transfer trusses and transfer girders at floors 5 through 7 transferred loads between discontinuous columns.  These elements, though serving the purpose of shifting loads from one set of columns to another, also essentially ‘tied’ the columns to each other.” *  Eye witness observations from FDNY, NYPD, building occupants and bystanders indicated that the damage from the falling debris from WTC1 and 2 were located on the south face between floors 8 and 18, and there was a fully involved fire on the south side of floor 7.

Study of videos from the WTC7 collapse show a kink develops in the east penthouse before it falls into the building.  The west penthouse then fails, followed by a kink in the entire facade of the building.  Total collapse soon follows.  This sequence of events, with roof elements sinking into a building with an intact facade, suggests an interior failure.  An interior failure would explain the appearance of a “controlled” collapse.  The sequence of final collapse can be interpreted using knowledge of the building’s framing from existing plans.  In particular, internal columns were located directly below the east penthouse and supported relatively large tributary areas.  Fire significantly weakened the structural steel and caused the failure of one or more columns on the eastern side of the building, as evidenced by the sinking of the east penthouse.  This indicated a vertical progression of failure from the damage on the lower floors to the failure of the penthouse.  The sinking of the west penthouse, as well as the shifting of a clear kink from the east penthouse towards the middle of the structure, indicates that the collapse then progressed horizontally, as the localized failure of the eastern columns was distributed to the other columns through the transfer elements at floors 5 through 7.  This ultimately lead to the global collapse of WTC7.

* [ http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf ]

Argument: Numerous incidents and recorded statements reveal FOREKNOWLEDGE. They include a countdown, warnings and announcements from both CNN and the BBC of the “collapse” … before it happened!

Why isn’t it possible that the authorities would want to warn people the building might collapse as a precaution?  It was hit by debris from the collapsing WTC 1 and had been on fire on multiple floors for 7 hours…  also, WTC 7 was said to be making creaking noises by FDNY members.  Isn’t a building with massive structural damage and fires burning inside unabated making creaking noises generally considered a precursor to collapse?

Argument: Most of the debris ended up in compact pile – centered within the original footprint.

(See above Argument: A single, localized failure (a girder unseated – NIST) could not cause the systematic and total FAILURE OF 400 OTHER STRUCTURAL STEEL CONNECTIONS PER SECOND.)

Argument: The 47-story steel-framed structure was dismembered and reduced to a small pile only a few stories high – with complete destruction- unmistakable signs of a controlled demolition with explosives.

How many 47-story steel-framed buildings that have collapsed on their own do we have to compare to?  Does the following image* look like the building was reduced to a small pile, or that it was completely destroyed?

* [ http://www.debunking911.com/b7debris.jpg ]

Argument: Extremely high temperatures far above those of normal office fires, persisted for weeks in the pile, as indicated by various sources (e.g. infrared images by MTI, EarthData and NASA).

As thermite is a quick and violent exothermic reaction, wouldn’t this actually be evidence against thermite?

Argument: FEMA documented in Appendix C of its report a “severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel” – sulfur and liquid iron penetrated into the steel. Office/jet fuel fires cannot account for this. Other research revealed the signature of thermite, which creates molten iron.

Another source of steel sulfidation could be from the hydrogen chloride produced by burning polyvinyl chloride.  Considering the large quantities of plastics used in modern office buildings, and the extensive fires resulting from the plane impacts and resulting collapses, wouldn’t that produce more than enough caustic hydrogen chloride to sulfidize the structural steel?  Another source could have been from the the gypsum in the drywall and plaster.  We have proof of sulfur in drywall and the ability of hydrogen choloride to corrode steel.  We only have speculation of the source of sulfur being thermite. (See also Argument: Evidence of thermite found in previously molten metal, WTC dust and steel.)

Argument: FEMA’s May 2002 report concluded that its hypothesis that fire caused the destruction had only “a low probability of occurrence” and that “further investigation and analysis were required”, although by that time, almost all WTC 7 steel had already been removed and destroyed.

Because they removed the steel or let it be re-used elsewhere 9 months after the attacks, it’s somehow evidence of the conspiracy? Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning ]

Misc:

Enhancing images with Photoshop is not an accurate or reliable way to add detail to a distorted image, nor is zooming in on said image.  Digital imaging software can’t just enhance an image like it does on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit or CSI.  A digital image is limited by the resolution it was originally taken at.  “Enhancing” it with Photoshop or other digital imaging programs makes mathematical approximations dictated by the algorithms written by the programmers of the software.

Some potential evidence of Steve Jones’ impartiality or lack of adherence to the scientific method:

[ http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/2006/12/15/911-steven-jones-and-me/ ]

more info:

[ http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445987 ]

Comments about Cherry Picking:

Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as “cherry picking” and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.

Richard Somerville, Testimony before the U.S House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, March 8, 2011