Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7 → Washingtons Blog
Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7 - Washingtons Blog

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

Preface: This essay does not question whether Bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacked us on September 11, 2001, or whether Iran, Saudi Arabia or another nation-state had a hand in the attacks. It focuses solely on a peripheral issue regarding the third building which fell on that terrible day.

Former commander-in-chief President Bush said:

Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories.

Indeed, the 9/11 Commission was warned not to probe too deeply. For example, ACLU, FireDogLake's Marcy Wheeler and RawStory reported (quoting RawStory):

Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, according to a document recently obtained by the ACLU.

The current commander-in-chief, Barack Obama, has also warned against questioning 9/11:

As anyone in the military knows, you can't give your opinion unless you get first "permission to speak freely".

We're not in the military. However, I am not entirely sure that matters, given that speaking out against government policies may be considered a type of terrorism in America today.

Many hundreds of high-level military officers, intelligence officers, congressmen, legal scholars and experts have broken the commander-in-chief's orders not to question the government's official narrative regarding 9/11. And see this and this.

But neither Bush nor Obama has instructed us not to discuss World Trade Center Building 7. Indeed, they have never once mentioned the fact that a third building collapsed on 9/11 (and the 9/11 Commission never mentioned it either), even though that building was not hit by a plane.

And no one was killed when Building 7 collapsed. As such, discussions of why Building 7 fell does not question Al Qaeda's responsibility for the 3,000 deaths of innocent Americans which occurred on 9/11. It doesn't even touch on U.S. military affairs since 9/11, since no wars or anti-terror campaigns were launched to avenge anything which happened in connection with Building 7.

For these reasons, I will take the commander-in-chiefs' silence on this subject as permission to speak freely. And the family members who lost loved ones on 9/11 want this topic discussed.

Moreover, if Building 7 collapsed for reasons other than the official explanation, that does not necessarily show nefarious intent. For example, Paul K. Trousdale - a structural engineer with decades of experience - says:

I had always thought the 3rd building was destroyed to prevent unpredictable collapse.

Here It Is

Have you ever seen Building 7 collapse? Here's footage from several different angles:

Top Experts Say Official Explanation Makes No Sense

Numerous structural engineers - the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents - say that the official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates the law of physics":

I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were imploded

The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the original investigation
  • Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:
    From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one can see the similarities
  • Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience, says:
Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition

  • Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry:
    World Trade Center 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Buildings do not suddenly fall straight down by accident
  • Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, writes:
Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust
WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?
In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation
Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .
I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.

Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse.

For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures
We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.

We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?

Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise

The symmetrical "collapse" due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics
It is virtually impossible for WTC building 7 to collapse as it did with the influence of sporadic fires. This collapse HAD to be planned
  • James Milton Bruner, Major, U.S. Air Force, instructor and assistant professor in the Deptartment of Engineering Mechanics & Materials, USAF Academy, and a technical writer and editor, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

It is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire. This is very suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living
  • David Anthony Dorau, practicing structural engineer with 18 years' experience in the inspection and design of buildings under 5 stories tall, who worked as a policy analyst for the Office of Technology Assessment, an arm of the U.S. Congress providing independent research and reports on technological matters
  • Jonathan Smolens, 11 years experience, with a specialty in forensic engineering

The above is just a sample. Many other structural engineers have questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous experts in other disciplines, including:
  • A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward S. Munyak) says that the fires weren't big enough to bring down Building 7:

  • An American demolition expert (Tom Sullivan) says that the building couldn't have fallen so symmetrically unless demolition occurred:

  • Harry G. Robinson, III - Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President of two major national architectural organizations - National Architectural Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global / Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies. Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam - says:
The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did
Again, this essay is not questioning whether or not Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks, or even the collapse of the Twin Towers.

It is simply questioning why a third building which was never hit by a plane collapsed on 9/11.


  1. Outstanding documentation, GW. Sometimes the most powerful written words evoke few comments. Game-changers often leave people with nothing to say, at first.

    And then, as doors open, sight adjusts, feelings and thoughts register, people have much to think about, say, and do.

    This is similar to saying (work with me here), that after watching a pregnancy develop and not know what was happening except an increase in "something obviously happening" and pointing it out to others who increase in numbers that also see it, then witnessing a birth.

    Ok, you can only push analogies so far...

  2. Like many people, I at first accepted and even defended the semi-official explanation (thanks for that quick propaganda, PBS), which later morphed into the official explanation: at first we heard that certain connections had failed; later we heard that they were too strong and caused buckling: whatever - the point was that certain floors collapsed, due to fire, leading to a sequential cascading building collapse.

    But when the propaganda subsides, or it's smooth surface is broken by anomaly, one finally realizes what one saw that day: buildings EXPLODING, not falling.

  3. This is all good stuff.

    The trouble with the disclosure is that any other explanation that doesn't involve complicity falls apart when you think about how it would have to be done. (They set it up to be demolished in one day?)

  4. I like this short presentation by Graeme MacQueen, a professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

    This man speaks very calmly and rationally.

    Part 1 (10 minutes) General considerations:

    Part 2 (10 minutes) Focus is on firefighter's testimony about explosions. Very compelling:

    Presentation by Richard Gage. This is a very well done presentation, covering most aspects of the collapses. Almost 2 hours:

  5. Read Chris Bollyn and Jeff Prader's reports on the WTCs. You engineers, especially those who worked on the WTCs,had your chance to come forward and you still run like cowards. I dislike you intensely.
    Also see Activist Post; Architects and Engineers Question... Comments on that article and my knowledge of WTC events from the late 1960s. Read it until you stop shaking if you are of the pultroon persuasion. Soldiers and civilians are dying horrible deaths out here because of American citizens' cowardice and self-centeredness.

  6. Never question the biggest lying hipocrates and murders on the face of planet earth. We know your guilty of crimes to humanity so you can run but you cannot hide Mr. Obama! The U.S. government is directly responsible with CIA and Israel's covert cooperation in these terrible acts. there is plenty of proof to show this. See Loose Change and Wake Up Call: New World Order remastered edition

  7. There's also the Dimitri Khalezov version of events...

  8. Amazing when I listen to the View with Jesse Ventura. The questions... "Why would the government lie? Why would the government do it?"

    They seem so innocent, so disgusting, so bambi-like and so repulsive. Who ever gets to the point in their own history where they are having a love affair with their government and their authorities?

    There she goes... Barbara... "Killing innocent people? How could you possibly suggest that the government could have anything to do with this?"

    Americans fell so much for their country. It happened in Germany, it happened in Japan, it happens different ways. Americans fell in love with their society - government - civilization, and got stuck holding a popsicle stick, saying, "How could the government possibly do something bad?" And a really sore ass.

    Americans got caught being, in the context of country, the stupidest and most gullible population on earth, for its love of its country - the wrong way.

  9. Only problem i have with this information is the preface, why not just say that the U.S. government was involved since anyone who has researched the issue knows they were, and why not just say Bin Laden likely had nothing to do with 9/11 as i have never seen one shred of proof that he was.

  10. Excellent article! May Day! May Day! May Day! Tick, tick, tick...

  11. note how the criminal trolls fear the search for truth
    they know exactly who and what they are protecting

  12. Thank you for sharing this.

    When will "the people" question their government.

    If it could be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that our government was complicit in this destruction, along with the other illegal activities of our government such as the "Gunwalker" scandal currently brewing, and the recent murder of Jose Guerena in Tucson, perhaps people would wake up and take action to prevent the ultimate destruction that is coming to this country.

    All of these things get quickly swept under the rug because the people allow it. They are too lazy and too stupid to resist the illegal activities of our government.

  13. I devote my youtube channel to this and related issues, Please stop by and take a look, although not a structural engineer I had a Meccano set as a child and played with Lego. One myth is that you need to be a 'credentialed expert' to see that this is a massive fraud. You don't. All you need is common sense and anybody can see that there is NO WAY these buildings could have come down because of fire, NO WAY. However the implications of what this says about American politics and the judicial system,

    That people watch a blatant crime being committed and pretend they saw nothing and suspend common sense and critical thinking. Thank you for this excellent summary of the WTC7 case but your proviso that "Al Qaeda' may be involved is a bit pointless because this article shows clearly that the 911 story is a fraud

    my channel if you are interested


  14. This information is just common sense and you do not need to be an architect engineer or Nobel prize winner to realize that buildings CANNOT fall in such a fashion because of Fire. The amount of evidence available that 9/11 was an "inside job' is overwhelming. There are so many Key facts that its quite hard to know where to start. I devote my YouTube channel to this issue

    Please stop by and take a look


  15. → The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:

    -- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over

    -- Comments that explicitly call for violence

    This seems to rule out almost every Government pronouncement then

    Dont they libel an entire class of people? Dont they call for violence? War is the ultimate violence

  16. The swine who dropped the WTCs (The Sears /Willis tower is still loaded-SEE MY ABOVE REFERENCE, YOU LAZY RATS!)is the same bunch who situated, licensed, and commissioned the Fukushima mess to do what it did. Look at the wars of the past one hundred years. This is nothing new. Homework, kids.
    Naval intelligence has known the jet stream patterns for over 80 years and the prevailing winds for 400 years. After they did 9-11, they blew out the oil well at the Maconda prospect, and continue to plague the U.S. with weather manipulation. Semper fi,with SCIENCE!

  17. You 'engineers ' should have been in their faces 10 years ago with this stuff IN FRONT OF THE PROJECT ENGINEERS WHO ARE NOT ABOVE ANY OF YOU. You all act as if you must kiss the ground they walk on. WHY? There now is an organization of 1500 of these crybabies and they still 10 years later are still too terrified to talk to the builders. I hope they all go to hell like those pepople who perished in the wreckage. God bless those who died in that horrible attack. God damn these engineers acting like the true answer. They are as bad as the perps themselves.See Activist Post: Architects and Engineers Question... Comments section. It is vital and true.


→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).

→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).

→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:

-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over

-- Comments that explicitly call for violence

→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.