Building What is Up!
And there may be a lie on every page!
Take, for example, the first page:
In any other situation, the complete, free fall collapse of a 47-story skyscraper would be played over and over on the news. It would be discussed for years to come and building design codes would be completely rewritten.
What are the lies, misinformation, and misleading statements in these two sentences from Building What?
- “In any other situation, [the collapse] would be played over and over on the news.” Technically true. However, on a day when four passenger jets are hijacked and flown into buildings, when one of those planes is crashed after a passenger revolt, when two huge office buildings collapse, when Manhattan is evacuated, the collapse of a 47-story building just isn’t the hot news item it normally would be. It still was covered. It still was played over and over again on the news — not to the extent the Towers were, but it was covered by the new media. End result: Highly misleading.
- “complete, free fall collapse” The complete collapse was not free fall. There was a 2.25 second period of virtual free-fall during the entire 16+ second collapse of WTC 7. End result: Incomplete, misleading language that tends to produce a falsehood in the minds of the readers.
- “It would be discussed for years to come…” It has been. NIST’s report was the culmination of a years-long process. End result: False.
- “…and building design codes would be completely rewritten.” Building codes are being rewritten with the NIST recommendations. It’s rank hyperbole to say the codes must be “completely” rewritten. End result: False.
That’s two sentences on the very first page. Do the evidence pages continue this trend?
- Free Fall Collapse: A slanted recounting of the NIST-David Chandler exchange culminates in this whopper — “However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.” This is false. NIST’s modeling had already shown how this short time period of virtual free fall could happen. It occurred right after all remaining columns had buckled over an 8-floor span of Building 7. NIST did not go on to explain how the free fall could have occurred because they already had.
- NIST Collapse Model: Here, the website uses a figure from the NIST report on Building 7 to show how the modeling doesn’t look like the actual building falling. However, the figure is showing a modelling of building performance that included all observable fire data but none of the observable building damage. In this run, the building still fell down — just in a remarkably different progression. Building What? and AE911Truth are misapplying this data to prejudice their audience against the NIST report. (The modelling with all observable fire and building damage is very much like the collapse of the building, but doesn’t include the stiffening effect of the curtain wall.)
- Sulfidated Steel: Again, Sample 1 of the FEMA report is being misapplied by AE911Truth. Apart from the other false statements on this page, the citation of sulfur evaporating at 445°C is no point at all, since the hypothesis is that Sample 1 corroded because of high temperatures in a sulfur-rich atmosphere. For sulfur to be in the atmosphere, it would have to have evaporated – i.e., turned into a gas. Evaporated doesn’t mean disappear, folks.
- Explosive Residues: Independent researchers have actually misidentified paint chips as thermite. Seriously. Paint chips.
- Eyewitnesses: First off, no one technically is an “eyewitness” to explosions during the Building 7 collapse. At best, they are “earwitnesses.” And explosions do not equal explosive devices. Any actual explosive device used to cut core columns would have been distinctly heard on videotapes of the collapse. Amusingly enough, the only compilation of WTC 7 collapse video displayed by Building What? has no audio! Come on, folks, play the audio! Make us all “earwitnesses!” PS: Keith McPadden has told several versions of his experience, which don’t play well together. And if he’s correct, how is it that the Red Cross is in on the conspiracy? (The guy holding the radio in his account is a Red Cross volunteer.)
- Foreknowledge: Another amusing page from Building What? They imply on the front page that Building 7 hardly got any coverage at all, and then spend this entire page documented the extensive coverage of Building 7’s collapse on 9/11. The building was expected to fall down. Firefighters made the decision to pull people away from the building around 2:30 that afternoon, based on perfectly rational reasons. It caused a lot of controversy because people wanted to find any survivors they could in the wreckage. The plaintive call of beacons sounding the location of victims under the rubble is still haunting in the footage of the day. So lots of people were talking about Building 7 on the ground. A controversial decision with lots of passionate discussion led to a situation where news media discovered the story and covered it, sometimes mistakenly. PS: The Precision item is a hoot! The controlled demolition guys were so precise in their work that they knew right to the foot where the dust cloud would stop? Get real!
- Destruction of Evidence: This page is a massive begging of the question. Sorry, folks, you have not demonstrated “intent to prevent, hinder or delay the discovery or apprehension of…a person he knows or believes has committed a crime” with respect to the clean-up efforts. All you have demonstrated is a rush to clean up the site while the collapse investigators were getting their act together. If there was any criminal act being covered up, it certainly wasn’t the secret controlled demolition of these buildings in concert with the 9/11 attacks. This is not a reason to believe controlled demolition. You must prove controlled demolition before this item comes into play!
I’ve not seen the entire website and associated videos and photographs, but thus far I still haven’t seen the collapse of the east penthouse into WTC 7 included as part of the collapse sequence. In fact, one of the better videos showing that is the Dan Rather video, and its audio has been edited onto another collapse video! For a full video of what I’m talking about, check out this NIST video which includes the entire collapse:
So the Building What? website is yet another attempt to foist misinformation onto the general public by AE911Truth. It’s a shame that a few 9/11 family members have lent their names and reputation to help get this misleading website into the public eye. I hope they reconsider.