Let’s first define why this is so important. In terms of political history, this is probably the most important building collapse ever to have occurred; not just from an architectural perspective, not only because it raises very significant questions about the safety of high-rise occupiers and their rescuers should a similar building be involved in fire but because of what it represents in terms of what happened geopolitically and militarily as a result of its collapse. For Firefighters, this building's officially reported cause of collapse, if valid, should raise serious concerns about the safety of current offensive Firefighting techniques within these structures.
The following report was written in accordance with responsibilities defined under the 1999 Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations.
The following report was written in accordance with responsibilities defined under the 1999 Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations.
Summary
of the above independent report's findings:
● The building was modern, in good condition,
steel-framed with reinforced concrete floors, with high-specification class-A
fire protection (2-3 hours’ fire-protection-rated
and easily able to tolerate normal fires).
● Extensive damage
was caused to the south face from falling debris, but the NIST report states
that this was not a contributing factor in causing the building’s collapse.
Engineers have demonstrated that if this damage were to be considered a major
factor the building would have fallen asymmetrically, toppling in the direction
of that damage.
● There is
suspicion about what ignited the fires and when they started. NIST reports
falling debris as a “likely” cause from the north tower collapsing at 10:28am, however, there were witness reports of “thick
smoke” and an explosion from within Building 7 at about 9:30am which contradicts this claim.
● The fires were normal in size, the sort of fires to be
expected in any normal office type environment. There was nothing extraordinary
about their fuel source or location that might explain a prevention of
effective fire-fighting operations.
● The building’s fire alarm was linked to the automatic
sprinkler system. The fire alarm had been deactivated due to being set in test
mode for 8 hours that day, starting at 6:47am, it failed to reactivate at
2:47pm.
● The sprinklers did not activate. The official report
claims that the sprinklers did not activate due to a broken water main. There
is strong evidence to support good mains water supplies, which could have been
supplemented and boosted by a manually operated sprinkler system pump in the
building.
● The sprinkler system could also have been charged by
FDNY from external siamese fittings outside the building. This did not happen.
● Firefighting operations were prematurely curtailed in
Building 7. Firefighters were withdrawn from the building early in the day
based upon the orders of an unknown city official who predicted the
unprecedented fire-induced collapse of
this building 5 hours in advance.
● The official reasons provided for the Firefighters’
withdrawal included an alleged lack of water and resources. Water was available
in ample volume via the city water mains, and from 3 fire boats located nearby on the river Hudson, each capable of providing
up to 18,000 gallons of water per minute. Fire-fighting resources in lower
Manhattan were at an all-time high. There were more fire-fighting resources,
including, in the face of terrible and unprecedented FDNY loss of life, an army
of very willing and eager Firefighters wanting to work.
● The official study and technical theory of the collapse of the building are, according to thousands of architects and
engineers, unscientific and false. These same engineers and architects are
endorsed by scientists who confirm that the NIST explanation is not only false
but impossible.
● NIST refuses to release its data for peer-review and
has routinely refused to answer difficult questions from experts about
inconsistencies and errors in its theory of collapse.
● When the building collapsed there were many witnesses
reporting the sounds of loud, fast and repeated explosions. Military grade nano
thermite residues were discovered in the dust of the remains of the buildings.
This fact has been confirmed via an independent and international rigorous
scientific peer review process.
● When the building did collapse it fell at a
scientifically verified rate of acceleration indistinguishable from free fall. This is of great significance and
importance. For a large building (100 metres side to side) to collapse with
a level roof line, the building’s entire structural integrity must have been
removed simultaneously and almost instantaneously.
● In NIST’s August 2008 Draft Report the building’s free
fall was denied. The lead investigator at NIST had openly dismissed free fall
having occurred, correctly stating that this fact would require zero structural
integrity in the building.
● Due to the intervention of a high-school physics
teacher, in the November 2008 Final Report NIST was forced to admit that free
fall occurred, but they understated its significance in the report and totally
avoided elaborating upon the aforementioned implications of what it identified.
● There is only one explanation for the nearly instantaneous and simultaneous
removal of the building’s entire structural integrity which caused its free
falling collapse - controlled demolition.
● The collapse of this building exemplified seven
features of a textbook description of a controlled implosion:
1.
The collapse started from the bottom.
2.
The onset of the collapse was sudden.
3.
The collapse was total.
4.
The building came straight down.
5.
Its acceleration approximated that of a free-falling object.
6.
Most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny dust particles.
7.
The building ended up as a relatively small pile of debris.
● Professional controlled demolition experts agree that
Building 7 must have been collapsed by controlled demolition, with the added
affirmation that this sort of collapse is not possible due to fire alone.
● Based on the fact
that a steel-framed building has never before in history collapsed due to fire,
the accurate and certain foreknowledge of the collapse 5 hours before it
occurred, based only on alleged noises
coming from within the building, is extremely questionable,
to say the least. The only feasible explanation for this level of certain
foreknowledge, which was shared with many emergency workers in the area without
explanation, is that this information was founded upon
action based foreknowledge. Complete building collapse due to fires is
unprecedented, those who accurately predicted the collapse 5 hours in advance
must have known actions had been taken to cause the collapse to occur when it
did.
- Researching NIST’s credibility has revealed a very broken scientific reputation. It is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Centre reports, it was, therefore, an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.
Conclusion
Since these events 15 years ago, Firefighters' fundamental operational
procedures have not been changed for fighting high-rise fires. In the UK, local
government 'Stay put' policies, which advise residents in high-rise buildings
and flats to remain in their property when there is a fire, have not been
modified. The building design regulations have not changed and equivalent
buildings have not been retrofitted with modifications to prevent a recurrence
of Building 7's collapse.
However, if NIST's official report of what happened to
Building 7 is maintained by our authorities as a valid explanation of events,
in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work Act and other related
legislation, all of the above factors need to be questioned and critically
reassessed as a matter of great importance by fire services, local housing
authorities, and building standards regulators.
Generally, as a rule,
we tend to rely upon science rather than unfounded belief to understand our
world. Science is defined as the search for truth. When a scientific
truth is found, fundamentally this is always based upon a preponderance of
positive probabilities. We hold these findings as true until we find a good reason to believe otherwise. A true
and honest scientist will always accept questioning of his hypothesis and
continue to test its validity. From my observations of NIST’s analysis of
this collapse, observations shared by many highly qualified professionals in
their respective fields, an honest scientific approach has not been
pursued.
The deliberate and immediate removal and destruction of
nearly all the evidence at the scene of the crime, the failure to even mention
the collapse of Building 7 in the 9/11 Commission Report, combined with the
catalogue of errors and omissions in the NIST report, all aggregate to destroy
any credibility the report might hope to convey.
The claims made by NIST that the sprinkler operation and
fire-fighting efforts failed, due to poor water supplies and limited resources,
were false and only serve to further diminish their credibility. This
building’s fires could have been contained and extinguished well in advance of
the alleged structural failures.
The experts' evidence of the building's uninhibited
gravitational free fall acceleration, its symmetrical collapse perfectly into
its own footprint, witness testimonials of explosions, evidence of explosive
residues, and 'certain foreknowledge' of the building’s collapse, all
points compellingly towards an alternative hypothesis - a deliberate case of
controlled demolition. A hypothesis which, if the scientific principle of
Occam’s razor had been applied, should have been the first to have been tested.
This analysis has been completed without being influenced or
prejudiced by the details of the politics in the background of this incident. The
data and the evidence alone dictated what the study discovered. Unfortunately,
it’s an unavoidable fact that this case is connected with politics and,
speaking personally, I can say with open sincerity that I trust Newtonian
Physics and the laws of nature infinitely more than I trust politics. As
previously stated, gravity is not just a good idea, it’s a law. In agreement
with thousands of expert architects, engineers,
and scientists, the findings of this analysis identify that the risks to
Firefighters at this incident were not due to faulty architecture, sub-standard
engineering, untested fire-fighting procedures or a miraculous fire-induced
building demolition.
The symmetrical freefall of this building is impossible without the application of very high forces to uniformly remove the structural integrity instantly across all 82 columns, throughout a minimum of eight levels, in order to achieve the documented 2.25 seconds of freefall for eight storeys.
Freefall is not an opinion, its a fundamental and hitherto undisputed law of nature.
*****************
In an attempt to expose this evidence and demand an independent re-investigation thousands of Architects and Structural Engineers across America are campaigning to reveal the truth of the above and more. You can find their excellent website at www.ae911truth.org
Additional recommended viewing:-
Technical details of problems with the NIST hypothesis, including details of omissions proven from FOIA requests:
