World Trade Centre 7: The 47-Storey Skyscraper That Didn’t Fall Down
Ex- Mi5 David Shayler looks at the 9/11 attack conspiracy
When I encounter those who insist on supporting the Official Story or hypothesis about the events in New York which took place thirteen years ago today, I say: ‘So you believe contrary to the incontrovertible TV footage that WTC7 didn’t collapse that day?’
And that’s because the 9/11 Commission didn’t take any evidence about or give any analysis of the collapse of the 47-storey building 7 of the World Trade centre complex, also known as the Salomon Brothers building, even though the Commission’s final report did actually mention the building.
(It held offices for the CIA, the FBI, New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani’s Emergency Command bunker and files pertaining to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s major corporate fraud investigations -- which were all lost).
Yes, that’s right. The Commission charged with responsibility for giving a full account of the events of 9/11 clearly did not know a massive skyscraper had come down that day in Manhattan. It remains the only steel structure to be brought down by fire and gravity in history without being hit by a plane. (The only other two steel-frame buildings to be brought down by fire ever are... you guessed it, the Twin Towers, that same day).
Like those other two iconic towers, WTC7 came down at freefall speed in a vacuum, falling neatly, rapidly and symmetrically into its own footprint. In the case of Tower 7, it took just 6.5 seconds to wholly collapse, with the central column going first. These are all hallmarks of an induced demolition, which is clearly beyond the scope of Al Qaeda, the culprits fingered by the powers-that-be -- on the day of the attacks before any objective investigation had taken place.
The US National Institute of Standards of Technology has admitted its putative initial hypothesis that fires and exploding fuel tanks in the basement caused the collapse has ‘a low probability of occurrence’ or is highly unlikely.
When prompted to investigate further, the Institute limited the scope of their investigation to the moment of collapse, meaning they did not take into account the rapidity of the descent of the building; study the actual video images and stills of the collapse; or take forensic surveys of the site to test for any chemicals that might shed light on the rapid failure of the steel-framed structure.
Since this constitutes an admission of the selective use of evidence, their research cannot be held to be objective or any basis for determining the truth of the matter.
NIST’s reconstructed video model of the collapse of WTC7 stops at the point of collapse. Even then the distorting of the building in the model bears no resemblance to the actual footage of WTC7 on the day. The Institute’s scientists have refused to reveal the parameters or data fed into the model for peer-review analysis by other scientists.
But get this: at 21:54 GMT (16.54 local time) on 9/11/2001, the BBC announced that WTC 7 had collapsed, some twenty-odd minutes before it actually collapsed. It was presented as fact, not as a ‘report of’ or ‘’sources have said that’. The BBC also gave the reasons for the collapse of a building which had yet to fall.
The BBC’s first response gave no detailed explanation. Head of news at BBC World, Richard Porter stated: We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
Watch the broadcast. The reporter, Jane Standley, does not use these phrases. Nor does she use them to describe the cause of collapse – fires weakening the steel columns. In the second response, head of news at BBC World, Richard Porter stated: ‘there was a fairly consistent picture being painted of Building 7 in danger of collapse’.
Although he quoted a CNN report as a source, in the footage in question, WTC7 has not yet collapsed, although the presenter is clearly expecting it to. Porter does not elaborate further. He also tried to excuse the BBC’s apparent clairvoyance in the matter by stating that Auntie occasionally got it wrong when reporting in confused circumstances like the day of 9/11. He did not though cite any other examples of where the BBC’s misinformed and inaccurate reporting of events had subsequently come true.
Why were his alleged sources painting the picture of a building in imminent danger of collapse, when no steel structure has ever been brought down by fire? As a result of pressure from 9/11 Truth activists – not mainstream journalists, you note -- the BBC was forced to investigate where the report had come from. At this point, Reuters admitted that it had come from their news service earlier in the day (see The BBC’s Conspiracy Files documentary, The Third Tower).
As yet, investigators have not questioned Reuters as to the source of their information, even though apparent prior knowledge of a crime is routinely used by police and intelligence services to argue grounds for reasonable suspicion that the individual was involved in that crime.
The Murdoch-owned Fox News reported the collapse of WTC 7 as fact, as well. In that broadcast, it comes down during the live report, much to the consternation of the presenters, who have already reported that WTC7 has collapsed. Again, they are also immediately certain about the cause of the collapse. Remember, no steel structure has ever been weakened enough by fire to simply fall down.
Then again, CNN had already reported a similar collapse – a building of about 50 storeys – which reportedly took place at about 10:45am New York time. Phoning in from Lower Manhattan, one of the station’s reporters, Allan Dodds Frank, gave a vivid report of a skyscraper collapse: ‘Just two or three minutes ago there was yet another collapse or explosion. I'm now out of sight, a Good Samaritan has taken me in on Duane Street. But at a quarter to 11, there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower. And a firefighter who rushed by us estimated that 50 stories went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon’.
Since no other building went down that day, charitably we might wonder what Mr Dodds Frank was witnessing or less charitably, why he was sticking to a pre-planned script in which the plotters had envisaged that WTC7 would come down shortly after the North Tower to create maximum chaos, when this clearly hadn’t happened in practice.
As already argued, apparent prior knowledge of a crime is taken by investigators to be evidence of complicity and guilt in that crime. How else would you know the intended target of a criminal conspiracy unless you were part of that conspiracy?
(See also the Project for a New American Century’s document Rebuilding America’s Defenses which shows potential prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks on the part of Neo-Cons who later became part of the Bush administration which prosecuted the War on Terra).
Despite this ‘smoking gun’ evidence that the 9/11 attacks were pre-planned by individuals with access to and influence over the Western media, investigators have not used the reasonable suspicion raised by this as grounds to arrest the suspects and interrogate them.
Even if the powers-that-be could provide a coherent explanation for prior knowledge of the causes of collapse of a building that had yet to actually collapse – which they can’t -- they would still have to deal with the further overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, like the Twin Towers.
In order to perform a controlled demolition, the culprits would have to have access to the buildings to be able to plant the explosives at tens of thousands of joists and install the detonation system to ensure that the charges went off in sequence to bring the buildings down into their own footprints. This is clearly beyond the capability of Al Qaeda, which the official hypothesis continues to blame for the attacks – in the absence of any tested evidence.
So what further evidence might there be of a pre-planned controlled demolition indicating that 9/11 was an inside job? Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko was shown video of the collapse of WTC 7 for the first time by a Dutch television crew. He had no prior knowledge of the collapse of WTC7.
After viewing the video, he was in no doubt that Building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition:
In July 2007, Jowenko was killed in a one-vehicle accident when his car slammed into a tree, three days after Director of Studies at the US Army War College, Dr Alan Sabrosky, gave an exclusive interview to PressTV in which he again reiterated his belief, which he says is common knowledge in some intelligence circles, that elements within both the CIA and Israeli Mossad planned 911. A year earlier Sabrosky had said in a radio interview that his skepticism of the official 911 story was prompted by Jowenko's testimony.
The latter’s death therefore has all the hallmarks of an assassination made to look like an accident.
The leaseholder of WTC7, Larry Silverstein, told the PBS documentary America Rebuilds that WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition:
‘I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it”. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse’.
We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary that Silverstein makes his ‘pull it’ comment, a cleanup worker referring to the demolition of WTC Building 6 says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six." The term is industry jargon for planned demolition.
In 2006, Silverstein’s PR people issued a statement apparently to clarify his comments: ‘In the afternoon of September 11, Mr Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building’.
The insurmountable problem with this explanation of Silverstein's statement is that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7.
Dr Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) assaying: ‘There was no firefighting in WTC 7’.
The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: ‘no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY’.
An article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: ‘By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons’.
So it is not just clear that the owner of WTC7 admitted it was subject to controlled demolition, a fact which was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission when it was set up a year later, more incontrovertible evidence of a cover-up. It is also abundantly clear that Silverstein’s PR people were lying to deflect attention from the fact that Silverstein had admitted that WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition.
Usually investigators see this sort of inconsistency as grounds for reasonable suspicion to arrest and interrogate those involved. Yet when it comes to the biggest crime in history they abandon usual practice. We have to ask: ‘Why?’ then come to the reasonable conclusion that the police and intelligence services were – and still are – part of the cover-up.
It has also emerged that WTC7 was reinforced with extra steel in the early 1990s, making anything other than some form of induced demolition being the cause of the complete collapse even less likely. Silverstein told the New York Times:
‘We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors.
‘More than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of miles of welding – was to be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment, prompting one commentator to remark: ‘Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building’.
Critics of the 9/11 truth movement often make the accusation that its members are not experts and have no qualifications to comment on the data observed that day. However, nearly ten years ago, respected physicist; archaeometrist and metallurgist Dr Steven E Jones concluded in a paper entitled Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?that it was far more likely that WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition: ‘I have called attention to glaring inadequacies in the “final” reports funded by the US government. I have also presented multiple evidences for an alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms.
‘On the other hand, hundreds of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives. […]Evidence relating to WTC 7 and its mysterious collapse must not be held back. In particular, photos and analyses of the molten metal observed in the basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the international community of scientists and engineers immediately’.
The powers-that-be have consistently refused to take a look at his well-researched and reasoned evidence, even though he is ideally qualified to come to his conclusions. In recent years he has been joined by over 2,200 architects and engineers across the world who have come to the same conclusions and have rebutted the pathetic attempts of the powers-that-be to cloud and confuse what is a very clear issue.
Remember: ‘9/11 changed everything’ has been used as an excuse for war and repression on a grandscale. Governments across the world have used it as an excuse for the following:
Imprisonment without trial
Other oppressive and authoritarian legislation
Arbitrary arrest and detention for having placards, newspapers or Tshirts thegovernment doesn’t like.
More security checks
The premise for illegal wars in the Middle East in order to control energy, build military bases and profit still further from the illicit drug trade, including the highest recorded opium crop in Afghanistan in 2007.
In the light of these draconian acts, Is it too much to ask that they actually gather some evidence to prove what they are doing is in the public interest rather than an excuse to cast us back to the dark ages?