Free Web Space | BlueHost Review  

Main page

What is Building 7, and where was it?

In case you are not familiar with the World Trade Center, here is a diagram of the area to give you a better understanding of what building 7 was and where it was in relation to the other buildings.

The full sized image of that is:
Washington Post diagram of WTC

Below is an image based on thermal data at the site. Building 7 is the small pile of rubble at the bottom of the image between the two dark blue buildings. Above it are buildings 5 and 6. Building 5 is mostly intact, but the roof caved in on building 6, creating a hole in the center. The towers are above building 6, and both have been reduced to small piles of rubble.

The image and text is located at:
City University of New York

The steel beams in the towers were too heavy to travel far from the tower. Buildings 6 and 3 were pounded with steel beams, but the other buildings were hit only with smaller pieces of metal. The portion of building 4 that was near the tower was crushed, also. Building 5 survived quite well because it was far away from both towers.

Notice that much of the steel structure in building 6 survived, despite the bombardment of debris and the fires. The steel beams remained connected together, and the concrete remained as solid blocks. Building 6 did not turn into a small pile of rubble. Building 4 did not become dust, either.

So how do we explain the complete disintegration of building 7? You might assume that building 7 was hit with steel beams, but between building 7 and the tower was a road and building 6. If steel beams had been flying out of the towers towards Building 7, some of them would have hit the road. Actually, more of them would hit the road than building 7, so we should be able to find a pile of steel beams in the road. However, I am not aware of any such pile. As far as I know, the road was covered only with concrete dust and small pieces of debris. Therefore, our conclusion is that building 7 was hit only with dust and small objects.

Building 7 did not suffer much damage from the collapse of the towers. That building stood for many hours after the towers were destroyed. So how did the fires get started in Building 7? And how could those fires get so out of control that the sprinkler system and the fire department could not stop them?

Most importantly, how did the fire break all the steel beams at their joints and pulverize all the concrete?

Why so many dead firemen?

The reason so many firemen died in the World Trade Center is that they had no idea that a steel building could collapse from a fire. They ran into the towers just like they ran into other steel buildings on fire. No steel building had ever fallen apart from a fire before, so these firemen had no reason to worry.

Also, there was no sign that the building was about to come down. There were no creaking noises, and no parts of the building falling off.

When the collapse started, the building came down so incredibly fast that none of them had a chance to react. Has anybody ever seen a building collapse so suddenly and so rapidly? (Aside from demolition companies who destroy buildings with explosives.) What kind of fire does that to a steel building?

Firemen are begging for an investigation

Some people point out to me that the investigators would have noticed if these buildings had been blown up with explosives. However, there was no investigation. If you think this is just my opinion, take a look at this page at "Fire Engineering", which is a magazine for firemen. They are demanding a real investigation. Here is one quote from the editor in chief:

"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the 'official investigation' blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."

Also look at this page where some other firemen are pleading with the readers to send e-mail to President Bush and other officials to start an investigation.

Why would firemen be demanding an investigation if there already was one? Because there was no investigation! What kind of nation is America when firemen make accusations like that? What kind of nation is America when firemen have to beg people to send e-mail to President Bush to hold a real investigation? Is this your idea of a government that we can be proud of?

Or, do you suggest we accuse the firemen of being so stupid and/or ignorant that they just cannot understand the official investigation? Do you think these dumb firemen are stirring up trouble over nothing?

America spent tens of millions of tax dollars a few years ago investigating the sexual activities of President Clinton, but our nation refuses to investigate the WTC collapse even when firemen beg for one!

If Building 7 had truly been destroyed by fire...

There is almost no information about the collapse of building 7. The few people who have tried to explain its collapse have made only a few vague remarks, such as the building had “design problems”, or some of the fireproofing material was removed, or diesel fuel was stored inside the building. They refuse to provide a detailed explanation of these accusations.

When an airplane crashes, the FAA inspects the pieces to determine why the plane crashed. The try to learn from mistakes in order to prevent future accidents. Imagine an airplane crashing and the FAA announcing,

“Well, that airplane had design problems, and besides, the maintenance people removed some of the fire proofing material. So let's forget about it and move on. This discussion is finished. Goodbye.”

If building 7 had turned into powder from a fire in 1998 don't you think there would be an incredible uproar from the population? Wouldn't people who work or live in tall buildings wonder if their building might also disintegrate into powder if a fire breaks out? Wouldn't lawsuits would be filed against the landlord and the people who created the building? Americans file lawsuits all the time; why is nobody filing a lawsuit over a steel building that collapses from a fire?

There are accusations that the building was designed by idiots, but nobody wonders how many more buildings those idiots designed. There are accusations that the landlord removed fireproofing material, but nobody asks why. There are accusations that the maintenance crews were not doing a proper job, but nobody questions that, either. Rather, all the blame is shifted to the Arabs.

If building 7 had truly been destroyed by a fire you would see news reports like the following samples:

Skyscraper turns into dust!

Is your building safe?

Yesterday in Manhattan, a 47 story tall, steel and concrete skyscraper collapsed into a small pile of rubble. What could cause such a total and complete destruction of a skyscraper? According to experts, a fire! Experts say the building was designed by incompetent engineers, and that the city government never should have approved it.

How many other skyscrapers are this crummy? How many more will collapse if a fire breaks out? Is the building that you work in safe?

Today President Bush announced that all tall buildings will be inspected to ensure that they can resist fires.

Thousands of lawsuits set world record!

The shoddy construction, maintenance, and design of building 7 has caused thousands of lawsuits that are overwhelming the New York court system.

Most lawsuits have been filed against the designers of the building for incompetence, but the landlord has also been hit with thousands of lawsuits.

Landlord removed fireproofing!

Reports today indicate that the landlord of building 7 removed much of the fireproofing material inside the building. "This is equivalent to removing some of the supporting beams," complained one lawyer. "These people should not be allowed to own or maintain buildings!"

Has the landlord of your building also removed fireproofing material? Today President Bush asked all fire departments in the nation to start inspecting buildings to make sure they are safe. Landlords who remove fireproofing material will be prosecuted.

Insurance companies refuse to pay!

Insurance companies say the buildings collapsed from shoddy construction, maintenance, and design. They say this should be considered a criminal act rather than an accident.

There was no analysis of why the two towers and building 7 collapsed into dust, and nobody in any tall buildings has wondered if their building is also capable of turning into dust. The incident has been dismissed as being due entirely to the Arabs.

Nobody is calling for an inspection of buildings to make sure that other landlords have not removed fireproofing material, nor is anybody complaining that buildings be inspected to see if they are storing diesel fuel properly. Instead the news reports tell us to hate the Arabs:

Terrorists destroy the World Trade Center!

Building 7 collapsed at 5:28pm because of Arab terrorists. These terrorists are evil monsters who hate America because Americans love freedom. President Bush announced that we will bomb Afghanistan, and he suggested we may have to bomb Iraq, also. We need revenge.

President Bush warned the nation today to be prepared for a long fight against terrorism. He said this fight will last for years, and we'll have to kill a lot of people in many nations, and it will be expensive. We must kill, kill, and then kill some more! Onward good Christians and Jews! To the killing fields! Kill the Muslims! These are good killings, so do not feel guilty!

Why the secrecy with building 7?

News reporters ignore building 7. Do they consider the collapse of a giant building to be of no importance? I say it is because there is no way to explain the collapse of the building without the use of explosives.

Somebody knew that building 7 was going to collapse

Take a look at these remarks from Photographer Tom Franklin who took that "Iwo Jima flag raising" photo:

"Firemen evacuated the area as they prepared for the collapse of Building Seven.

We were catching our breath, drinking water and juice, when I decided to walk back toward the debris. It was between 4 and 5 p.m.

I would say I was 150 yards away when I saw the firefighters raising the flag."

Franklin's remarks show us that somebody told the firemen by about 4 to 5pm to stay away from the building because it was going to collapse. What evidence was there that it would collapse? Who told the firemen to stay away? Does the FBI wonder who those people were?

Considering that no fire had ever caused the collapse of a steel building before, why would anybody believe building 7 would crumble from a fire? Or were they just guessing that the collapse was possible after they watched the two towers collapse?

I suggest you consider the possibility that somebody was trying to keep the firemen away because they did not want the firemen to put the fire out. Also, by keeping the firemen away there would be fewer deaths to explain when the explosives were set off.

This attack is hurting America's "social fabric"

You certainly know that the attack has hurt America's economy. What you may not have noticed is that it is hurting what we might call our “social fabric”. What I mean is that the World Trade Center Attack Scam is causing hundreds — maybe thousands — of firemen to become disgusted with our government, as well as perhaps millions of other citizens. Some of us are also disgusted with both our government and with the flag-waving patriots who refuse to look critically at our nation's government and our foreign policies.

The attack is also generating lots of conspiracy theories. The FBI, CIA, Bush administration, and just about every other government agency, and a few foreign nations, are being accused of involvement by somebody.

There was never much respect for government in America, and now there is even less. There was never much respect for the FBI, and now there is even less.

The World Trade Center Attack Scam is breaking some of the bonds between us, and those bonds were never strong to begin with. The American people have never been very close. This nation has always had a lot of racial problems; a lot of fighting between men and women; and a lot of fighting between business owners and workers. The situation is worse now.

Many firemen, who were once proud of America, have become a bit disgusted. And many citizens, who were once proud of America, have become a bit disgusted. This attack is causing people to lose respect for their government and for each other. It is also creating apathy.

Other nations insult us also

One example is this interview with the former German Minister of Research and Technology. He does not believe the official U.S. explanation for this attack, and he even tosses in a remark about the how Noriega was on the payroll of the CIA.

I suppose President Bush would tell us that the German Minister hates us because we love freedom. However, there are millions of other people around the world who also ridicule us. We can dismiss all the insults as being due to our love of freedom, but I think those insults will have an effect on us psychologically.

America needs to change its attitude

If we want to make a better nation for ourselves, we have to behave in a better manner. We should be impressing the world, not giving them reasons to insult us. We should practice what we preach, not giving the world reasons to call us hypocrites.

We should also be selecting government officials that we can be proud of and which other nations are impressed by. The previous election, in which the American people selected Al Gore and George Bush as the only two qualified candidates for president, was a disgrace.

By the way, President Bush's remark about how Arabs hate us because we love freedom will probably be used as an insult for many decades. How can we be proud of our nation when we have an alcoholic idiot for President? Don't you think that having this loser for president has a psychological effect on us? Imagine a nation in which we are proud of our leaders, and compare that to what we have right now, in which people support President Bush only because of patriotic reasons.

Did witnesses hear any explosions?

Some people complain to me that if the buildings had been loaded with explosives then a few witnesses would have heard them going off. Ironically, there are reports of witnesses (including a fireman) who claim to have heard explosions just before the towers came down. But those reports are not found in common newspaper articles or TV news. Rather, they are found only on the Internet. Are those reports fabrications? Perhaps, but if so that means somebody is lying. Who do we trust? The TV reporters?

Is Scientific American part of the cover-up?

There have been many “experts” writing articles and creating websites that explain to us that the towers collapsed because of fire. None of them explain why building 7 collapsed. Is this a coincidence?

These authors imply that they did a lot of scientific research into why the towers collapsed, but they never bother to mention building 7.

Let's be serious. Any scientist, and especially any group of scientists, who truly studied the collapse of the towers would have noticed that building #7 also collapsed. And they certainly would not consider their article complete until they included the collapse of building 7.

Scientific American printed an article in October about why towers collapsed. The author ignores Building 7, as does everybody else who tells us that fire caused the towers to collapse. Perhaps the author truly believed what he wrote, but I suspect that the article was a farce, and that the author knew it.

For all we know, some of the other articles in Scientific American are actually attempts to promote a particular company or its products, or a particular university or laboratory.

What would it take for you to cancel a subscription to Scientific American? What if hundreds of firemen sent letters to you asking you to stop supporting that magazine and start demanding a serious investigation?

All the information in Scientific American can be obtained from other magazines; there is no reason that any of us need it. To continue subscribing to that magazine is to tell the publisher's that your standards of quality are so low that you do not care if the articles make any sense.

The same goes for newspapers and TV news. I have never subscribed to any newspaper or magazine, and I have never bought a television set. I cannot bring myself to supporting these people.

Of course, my original reason for not subscribing to newspapers and for not having a TV was simply because I considered the news to be so incredibly stupid that it was a waste of my time and money. Today I realize that subscribing to newspapers is more than a waste of my time and money; I realize it is supporting (financially) incompetent reporters and editors and encouraging them to create more idiotic and biased news.

If you want a better nation, you must demand higher standards for news reporting. We also need higher standards for scientific magazines.

In a free enterprise economy the consumers determine which newspapers and magazines survive. Therefore, unless you cancel subscriptions to low-quality magazines, nothing will improve. You must take part in this process.

Did you hear about the half-baked farce?

Scientific American has a news section, and there are thousands of newspapers, TV shows, and magazines that provide news. Did any of them inform you that some firemen are calling the investigation a half-baked farce? No; that is not important news to them. Instead they entertain you with odd crimes, sexually titillating photos and material, and reports about how we must kill more Arabs.

Is the half-baked farce accusation the only news item the American media is suppressing? No; they routinely provide us with biased news, and they routinely suppress news. They also did not let you know that Fire Engineering wrote: The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.

If you don't cancel subscriptions to at least the worst of them, and if you don't demand higher standards of quality, nothing will improve.

Why did the US military buy satellite photos?

I suppose you heard that the US military bought all the satellite photos so that nobody could see the images of the World Trade Center. Were they afraid somebody might be able to observe building 7 explode? Or, were they trying to hide what they were doing in Afghanistan? Or, now that the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon is being questioned, were they trying to hide the photos of the Pentagon?

Regardless of what they were trying to hide, do you care that your tax money is spent on attempts to keep information from you? Is this your idea of a "free press"?

Why not join the email campaign?

One article in "Fire Engineering" magazine is called "Call to Action". Several firemen ask readers to send email to Bush and other government officials to ask for a real investigation. You and I could help by sending email, also.

Don't waste time writing them a nice message; they won't read it. Rather, they notice only the subject matter and the quantity of email they receive.

The firemen are sending the email to:
President Bush:
Senator Schumer:
FEMA Director Allbaugh:

I set up those links to create the email message for you when you click them, so why not do it?

The firemen also suggest sending the email to your own congressional representatives, but that will take more effort. I think you would do more good to send email to your friends and relatives, and other people who might actually read it.

Why am I doing an analysis of the attack?

I find it sad that the only analyses of this attack are being carried out by individuals (such as me) in our spare time rather than by the FBI, the engineering department of universities, and scientific labs. What kind of a nation is this?

Seismic data of the collapse

I cannot make much sense of seismic data, and the graphs on the Internet are crude, but I would like to point this graph out to you in case somebody who understands this data better will have something to say about it.

The seismic sensors are so sensitive that they picked up the impact of the airplanes as they hit the building. Notice that the collapse of the buildings was a much stronger signal. The collapse starts off with an enormous spike, and then quickly disappears.

Here is one site that has the data:

Click on the image for an enlargement of the area boxed in red.

Keeping in mind that I don't know much about this subject, here is my explanation of what those spikes mean.

When the first explosives were ignited, the building was intact, so the vibrations from the explosions were transmitted down the steel columns and into the earth. The explosives were detonated rapidly from the top of the building downward, so that initial detonation should have been transmitted into the earth. The big spike on the seismic data may be those initial explosions. However, as soon as the explosions separated the steel beams, the path between that section of the tower and the earth was broken. This would reduce the seismic data.

If the building had broken up into large pieces, those pieces would have fallen down and hit the ground with such force that the seismic sensors would pick up the collision. The seismic data should show the pounding of large chunks of building for at least a few seconds.

However, the explosives were turning the concrete into powder and breaking all the steel beams. Instead of large chunks of building falling down, thousands of tons of powder were falling. The only heavy objects to hit the ground were short sections of steel beams, pieces of office furniture, and human body parts.

Because of our atmosphere, the thousands of tons of concrete powder did not hit the ground with a large force. Rather, it became a huge cloud which spread outward at high speed, sweeping through the streets. These clouds of concrete hit the ground too softly to be picked up by the seismic sensors. If thousands of tons of concrete chunks had hit the ground, by comparison, the seismic data would certainly show lots of activity.

To summarize, the giant spike was the initial explosions, and the lack of activity afterwards was because the concrete turned to powder. If the towers had truly "fallen down" from a fire, there would not be just one giant spike; rather, there would be lots of smaller spikes as chunks of building pounded the ground.