7 Non-Problems with Building 7

Dwain Deets, the “writing team lead” for AE911Truth, has a new website up, 7 Problems with Building 7, which lists seven items he considers problems. They’re not.

One

No plane struck the 47-story World Trade Center skyscraper (Building 7).

Who cares? A meteor didn’t hit it, either. King Kong didn’t use the building to attack Cloverfield. That’s not how the building fell down.

And while no plane struck the building, debris from the collapsing 110-story WTC 1 did:

That smoking debris is what started the fires in the building, just like all the fires around the collapses in other buildings and vehicles.

Two

No evidence of fires in Building 7 for the first 100 minutes after being struck by debris from Tower 1. (Yet fire from the debris is the official explanation for building collapse.)

And then there was plenty of evidence of fires for the next 321 minutes the building burned.

The fires took time to build. It’s not like the WTC towers, where two airplanes loaded with jet fuel smashed into the building, starting massive fires over numerous floors immediately. In WTC 7, some pieces of debris started small fires that were unfought in the lower floors and allowed to build.

This was different in the upper floors, the ones visible above the other buildings. There the backup sprinklers were connected to tanks in the building, so any small fires there would have been knocked out quickly. However, the lower floors had both primary and backup sprinklers connected to the city main. That main was severed in the collapses of the Twin Towers, leaving any small fires in the lower floors unresisted.

To quote the NIST report specifically (NIST NCSTAR 1A, p. 18 (pdf 80)):

Even though available images showing fires in WTC 7 did not allow the detailed description of fire spread that was possible for the WTC towers, there was sufficient information to derive general descriptions of fire ignition and spread on various floors of the building (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). It must be kept in mind that the fire observations were based on images of the exterior faces, which provided little indication about the behavior of fires well removed from the exterior walls. …Features from this interior burning were reconstructed from the computer simulations of the fires, as described in NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 9.

If Mr. Deets has an alternative hypothesis for the sources of these fires, he has yet to posit it.

P.S.: The account of Barry Jennings, a survivor who was in WTC 7 when WTC 1 collapsed into it, makes it clear that fires started when the debris hit the building. Jennings’ timeline is a bit off — he thought the collapses of the Twin Towers happened much later than they did — but in the time it took him to recover his wits, extract himself from a precarious situation on the sixth floor staircase landing, and make it up to the eighth floor again, he reported extreme heat inside the building. At that point, he and his companion break out a window. They call for help, and it takes firefighters “about an hour” to locate them inside the building.

They make it out between 12:10 and 12:15 p.m. An hour back from that is around 11:15 — 45 minutes after the collapse of WTC 1, Barry Jennings reports extreme heat in the lower floors of the building, bad enough that he must break a window to gain breathable air and call for help.

Three

A free-fall drop of 2.25 sec. is finally officially acknowledged. NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) lead investigator explained months earlier that, had there been free fall, there would have been no structural components below.

Yes, and this period of free fall acceleration confirmed the computer modeling already performed by NIST. The building had lost structural integrity over eight floors at that point of the collapse.

Four

Mainstream media quickly transitioned coverage of the building collapse to a “feel good” spin, focusing on the building being vacant when it came down. Dan Rather and Peter Jennings were more candid with their immediate comments, relating it to the familiar demolition of buildings we all well know.

So? Isn’t it a good thing no one was in the building when it collapsed, Mr. Deets?

Five

No mention of the collapse of Building 7 in The 9/11 Commission Report.

There’s plenty of mention of the collapse of Building 7 in the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. That’s the actual scientific paper coming from the government on this matter.

Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission Report was about how the attacks took place and the official response to these attacks. Building 7 fell seven hours after WTC 1. Why should the 9/11 Commission Report have mentioned this event?

And would a brief mention of the collapse of Building 7 have satisfied Mr. Deets? No, he would say that it was only mentioned once. What if an entire chapter had been devoted to Building 7 falling in the 9/11 Commission Report? Well, considering the treatment that he and AE911Truth give to the NIST reports, even this chapter would not have spared the 9/11 Commission from his censure.

So again, who cares?

Six

The New York Times characterized as “perhaps the deepest mystery in the investigation,” a FEMA-report appendix about a steel specimen recovered from Building 7, rather like Swiss cheese, a product of extraordinarily high temperatures.

And that mystery has been solved. The specimen is currently at the Worchester Polytechnic Institute. The scientists there have examined the specimen. Its corrosion is due to a eutectic mixture. As the Wikipedia article makes clear, when you hear the term “eutectic” you begin to think “lower temperatures than normal for physical changes,” because that’s what eutectic systems do. For example, salt and water can combine to produce a lower melting point than either salt or water. This is why communities use salt on icy roadways — the overall mixture is liquid instead of solid on the roads, making passage safer.

This corrosion being the result of a eutectic completely rules out thermite arson as a source. From the JOM letter “An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7” by J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.:

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

1000°C is very hot, but it is far, far cooler than the temperature at which thermite burns. Thermite could not have inflicted this damage on the specimen of WTC 7 steel identified by FEMA.

P.S.: Please note the date of that JOM letter — December 2001. That’s how long we’ve known that this piece of steel is not evidence of a thermite arson attack.

Seven

No mention in the NIST Building 7 Final Report of this mysterious steel specimen.

There was no way to ascertain where in the building the piece had come from, if it had come from Building 7 at all. NIST had all the specifications for the steel that was used in building WTC 7, and used that extensive documentation to calibrate its computer modeling. Others have studied the actual piece and are on record as saying the damage suffered by this piece was not a factor in the fall of the building.

Mr. Deets would do best to find another hobby for his retirement years.

July 23, 2010 · Joseph Nobles · One Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,  · Posted in: WTC 7

One Response

  1. Tweets that mention AE911Truth.INFO » 7 Non-Problems with Building 7 -- Topsy.com - July 23, 2010

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Joseph Nobles, Joseph Nobles. Joseph Nobles said: 7 Non-Problems with Building 7 http://bit.ly/bPmx8h Dwain Deets, "writing team lead" for AE911Truth fails miserably with new site [...]