WTC7: The Facts

[Dr Adequate]

Please help to assemble the factiest facts, from the primest of primary sources. Then I will put it together, format it nicely, and put it on the SkepticWiki.

Last time we did this, we made the 9/11 Glossary, which is the top Google hit it for "9/11 Glossary" and second for 9/11 Glossary. But people google on WTC7 much more frequently, and it would be nice to give them something to look at.

Thanks. So, what do we need?

(1a) Eyewitness accounts of the holes in WTC7.

(1b) Photographs.

Now I know I've seen a photograph of the south face damage, but all I can turn up is picture after picture of the SW corner damage.

(1c) Do we know what made the hole or have accounts of the impact?

NIST's account of what hit where is here (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf), but what are the primary sources, what's the evidence?

(2a) Eyewitness accounts of the fire at WTC7.

(2a) Photographs.

This has a certain eerie drama ...

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/wtc7fire2.jpg

BTW, the photographs on the internet tend to be unsourced. Ideally, we would know who took which photographs.

(3) Firemen and other first responders saying that they expected collapse.

(4) Video of the collapse.

LD06SAf0p9A
But is there a better one? I've looked at a few ... did no-one think to get in a good position, point a camera at WTC7, and wait?

People can be so inconsiderate.

(5) What do we know about collapse times? Do we have seismic evidence?

(6) The experts' views on the collapse

FEMA on WTC7 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf).

NIST on WTC7 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf).

(7) A good photo showing that it didn't "implode symmetrically into its own footprint".

Something like this?

http://www.freewebs.com/joecraine/b7_debris3.jpg

WTC7 debris squashed up against the Verizon building.

Or this one's rather good.

http://911review.org/WTC/4238.jpg

(8a) What exactly did Silverstein say involving the word "pull"?

I remember getting a call from the uh Fire Department Commander telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. And I said y'know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smarterst thing to do is, is pull it. Ah, and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse.

(8b) A video of it.

7WYdAJQV100
PBS, America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero. Premiered September 10, 2002 (linky (http://www.greatprojects.com/films.html)).

(8c) Silverstein on what Silverstein meant:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

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.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed.

Statement by Dara McQuillan for Silverstein Properties, September 9 2005. (Linky (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html).)

(8d) Do we have a quote from anyone involved in demolition saying: "No, 'pull' definitely doesn't mean that"?

I have this quote attributed to implosionworld.com by a Truther named Joël v.d. Reijden (http://web.archive.org/web/20050327052408/http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222):

There is no such phrase in explo-demo. Most likely he [Silverstein] meant "pull out" as in have people evacuate. Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally.

However, this appears to have been an email communication.

(8e) That "pull building 6" video.

There's an mp3 of the audio here (http://www.infowars.com/audio/PullIt2.mp3).

(8f) Evidence that it was building 6 was pulled down rather than blown up?

(8g) Summarize 'pull' woo, mock it.

[b](9) A list of minor WTC7 woo

E.g. the "couldn't find the paper shredder" hypothesis, why isn't the NIST report out yet, blah blah.

(10) Who are the main sources of WTC7 woo?

(We already did a Who's Who of 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists, so just a list of names will do.)

[b](11) Anything else?

---

Thank you again for participating. Assuming that you do. If not, may the flaming monkeys of wrath afflict you unto the seventh generation.

[Norseman]

As always the site of Mark Roberts (Gravey on this forum) would be god start:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

I think you will find that he has covered a lot of it.

[Norseman]

(5) What do we know about collapse times? Do we have seismic evidence?

Regarding seismic, you will find the information here:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/

The first and last file are the relevant files for WTC 7. But it is not a straight forward matter to interpret what they say. The truthers have uncritically used the times given for signal duration in the fact sheet as their source for their free fall claims in relation to WTC 1 and 2, while the videos of course tells a different story. The explanation is of course that no significant seismic waves were generated before the first large piece of debris broken loose hit the ground.

ETA
See also FAQ #5 and #6 regarding WTC 1 and 2 here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

In other words the WTC 1 and 2 did not offer enough resistance to the falling mass to generate significant seismic waves.

The recording for WTC 7 contains what looks like two distinct seismic events, consistent with the collapse of the east penthouse, then a pause before the collapse of the west penthouse and the remainder of the building, as seen in the videos.

[Dr Adequate]

Gosh, he's good at first responder quotes, isn't he?

The PROTEC document (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf) is excellent too.

We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement.

and

This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001.

Though it would be nice to get that bit from someone else as well.

[Dr Adequate]

Regarding seismic, you will find the information here:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/

The first and last file are the relevant files for WTC 7. But it is not a straight forward matter to interpret what they say. The truthers have uncritically used the times given for signal duration in the fact sheet as their source for their free fall claims in relation to WTC 1 and 2, while the videos of course tells a different story. The explanation is of course that no significant seismic waves were generated before the first large piece of debris broken loose hit the ground. I guess I hadn't really been thinking about what seismic data alone would tell us.

So, let's make the question: "What do we know about the time it took to collapse?"

[Dr Adequate]

Am I just imagining seeing pictures of the south face damage?

After all, now I think about it, you'd have to be south of WTC7 to take them, which was not Mr Fun Happy Place To Be on 9/11.

[Jwheelz]

There are quite a few decent pictures in the "Leaked" NIST documents on the prison planet website.

Alex Jones tried to paint a picture around the statement of "an unusual event". I don't think he realized that the article actually provides evidence of very extensive damage to building 7. Here is his page --- http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/062508_unusual_event.htm

The document that really caught my eye is "WTC 7 chapter Pitts". here is the link to the direct Microsoft word download --- http://www.infowars.net/WTC7Report/WTC%207%20chapter%20Pitts.doc

It is 172 pages and very detailed. For the damage to the South Face with pictures, start at page 90.

It is a very interesting read.

[njslim]

A good source of pictures and video is from fire photographer Steve Spak who took
many shots from close up after many of the main stream reporters/photgraphers
had pulled back - which is why you have many shots of the North face of WTC 7
yet little of the damaged South.

Spak was featured in the recent BBC documentary on WTC 7 and beleive his segment
is still available.

[Dr Adequate]

The document that really caught my eye is "WTC 7 chapter Pitts". here is the link to the direct Microsoft word download --- http://www.infowars.net/WTC7Report/WTC%207%20chapter%20Pitts.doc

It is 172 pages and very detailed. For the damage to the South Face with pictures, start at page 90. Unfortunately, between teh internets and Microsoft Word, I can't read the pesky file. "The document name or path is not valid", says Word.

If you (or anyone else) can stick the pictures of the south face damage somewhere where I can see 'em, I'd be most grateful.

[Brainster]

Fine job, Dr A. Some suggestions:

Under 7, the damaged building in the second picture is Fiterman Hall (http://www.lowermanhattan.info/news/fiterman_hall_decontamination_plan_62704.aspx) (aka 30 W. Broadway). Fiterman Hall is a pretty good example of the absurdity of the Troofers' claim that the Twin Towers were brought down to save Larry Silverstein the cost of demolition due to environmental contamination. It has taken NYC and NYU almost seven years to come up with a plan to destroy this 15-story former dormitory.

Troofers often claim there were dead bodies in WTC-7. EMS Chief John Peruggia's account (http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110160.PDF) of his actions on 9-11 is invaluable in establishing a timeline for many events surrounding WTC-7. Peruggia reports ordering the initial move of a triage station from the lobby of WTC-7 to an area under a loading dock, and, after the collapse of the South Tower, out of WTC-7 entirely. He reports making a final sweep to be sure everybody was out of those areas. He tells of the stunning damage to WTC 7 just from the collapse of the South Tower (from which WTC-7 was shielded largely by the North Tower). This damage was confirmed in the recent BBC conspiracy files special on WTC-7.

[Dr Adequate]

A good source of pictures and video is from fire photographer Steve Spak who took
many shots from close up after many of the main stream reporters/photgraphers
had pulled back - which is why you have many shots of the North face of WTC 7
yet little of the damaged South.

Spak was featured in the recent BBC documentary on WTC 7 and beleive his segment
is still available. His site (http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/groundzero.html) has some excellent photographs ... I'm definitely going to pull these (http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html) out the next time anyone mentions "dustification" and how GZ was "flat".

It's a shame he's so jealous of his copyright ... you can't even link to individual photographs, 'cos he's blocked right-clicking on them.

[Hokulele]

Unfortunately, between teh internets and Microsoft Word, I can't read the pesky file. "The document name or path is not valid", says Word.

If you (or anyone else) can stick the pictures of the south face damage somewhere where I can see 'em, I'd be most grateful.


Did you try the trick of placing your mouse over the link from jwheelz, right-click, then choose "Save Target As..."? That one worked for me. There are a ton of images, and the entire image is over 42MB.

If you are still having trouble, I will try and paste some stuff here, almost all of them have copyright information (most are from Steve Spak, as mentioned earlier), so I am not sure what the legalities on usage are.

[Dr Adequate]

Did you try the trick of placing your mouse over the link from jwheelz, right-click, then choose "Save Target As..."? That one worked for me. There are a ton of images, and the entire image is over 42MB.

If you are still having trouble, I will try and paste some stuff here, almost all of them have copyright information (most are from Steve Spak, as mentioned earlier), so I am not sure what the legalities on usage are. I've tried saving it and I've tried opening it directly, it doesn't want to play ball.

If you could paste some pictures here, I shall add that to my List Of Things I Owe Hokulele For.

[Dr Adequate]

Troofers often claim there were dead bodies in WTC-7. EMS Chief John Peruggia's account (http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110160.PDF) of his actions on 9-11 is invaluable in establishing a timeline for many events surrounding WTC-7. Peruggia reports ordering the initial move of a triage station from the lobby of WTC-7 to an area under a loading dock, and, after the collapse of the South Tower, out of WTC-7 entirely. I've been trying to track this one back ... what, if anything, did Barry Jennings say about dead bodies?

Thanks.

[njslim]

Here is link to youtube video by Steve Spak - shows much of the area around GZ after
collapses, many shots of WTC 6 burning. Also several shots of WTC 7 on fire. In some
of the WTC 6 footage can see WTC 7 burning (at end of video shot of WTC 6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfdN0L0Q19w

[Myriad]

His site (http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/groundzero.html) has some excellent photographs ... I'm definitely going to pull these (http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html) out the next time anyone mentions "dustification" and how GZ was "flat".

It's a shame he's so jealous of his copyright ... you can't even link to individual photographs, 'cos he's blocked right-clicking on them.


Viewing the image URLs works fine in Safari (Mac).

http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/sift.jpg
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/layers.jpg
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/void.jpg
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/groundzero.jpg
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/bridge3.jpg
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/south.jpg
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/digs2.jpg
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/check.jpg

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Hokulele]

I've tried saving it and I've tried opening it directly, it doesn't want to play ball.

If you could paste some pictures here, I shall add that to my List Of Things I Owe Hokulele For.


Here are the non-Spak images. There are two pairs, the second of each pair is a close-up from the first.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1508348966f3aed7d5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13307)
[/URL]

[URL="http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13308"]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1508348966f6506dfc.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13306)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1508348966ea240100.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13304)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1508348966ecf75d29.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13305)

[MikeW]

High quality WTC7 damage videos here (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Damage_Videos).

And here are Spak's fire videos (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos), again full resolution.

[Dr Adequate]

Thanks to everyone so far.

So, a few questions remaining.

Do we know anything at all about how long WTC7 took to collapse? If not, why not, why do Truthers say we do, what is wrong with their analysis? (Well, the two or three most common Truther analyses then).

How do we know what caused the structural damage to WTC7?

What is the story with the Barry Jennings/dead body thing?

Other stuff. I remember, for example, someone debunking the "couldn't find the paper-shredder" hypothesis by pointing out how far papers were scattered from the ruined buildings after 9/11.

Is there video (I've got the audio) of the "pull building 6" segment of the PBS documentary? I (seem to) remember a Truther showing me the video, but I can't find it.

---

As for the south face photographs I thought I remembered ... memory's a funny thing, isn't it? I must have reconstructed my mental image from what I read.

---

Thanks to Hokulele, but I'm not going to steal from the NYPD, they might hold it against me.

[A W Smith]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3649483/World-Trade-Center-BLDG-7-VISUAL-EVIDENCE-DAMAGE-ESTIMATES-AND-TIMELINE-ANALYSIS

[boloboffin]

Other south face damage pictures:

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

It includes the two used to build a composite of the top thirty floors or so.

[stilicho]

I might add, Dr A, that one thing I haven't seen apart from LashL's excellent work on the "profit motive" in The Doc's paper, is actual testimony from the court cases and the presentations to the US Congress by insurers such as Jacques Dubois from Swiss Re. At the time the WTC7 debate began to grow legs (around 2003 or 2004), I had many links to insurers trade papers that I had used to explain to "pull it" proponents that nobody in the entire WTC complex insurance/reinsurance consortium had said a single thing about controlled demolition nor anything similar.

These were the people in the best position to use any evidence of controlled demolition yet they didn't say a thing about it.

Personally I don't have the time to pursue all these leads but somebody might have a good collection of links, quotations, and testimony from the insurers who lost billions in the disasters. Dubois, as a notable example, clearly revealed that he didn't like Silverstein personally during the legal battles and if anyone could gain from proving controlled demolition it would be him and the corporation he represented.

[Brainster]

Thanks to everyone so far.

So, a few questions remaining.

Do we know anything at all about how long WTC7 took to collapse? If not, why not, why do Truthers say we do, what is wrong with their analysis? (Well, the two or three most common Truther analyses then).

The problem here is that the underlying source is earthquake records, which do not really give the collapse times, if you think about it. An earthquake observatory is not going to record the beginning time of a collapse; rather it measures the amount of time that the ground was being pelted by debris from the structure. In the case of WTC-7 the first recorded event is clearly when the first mechanical penthouse either hit the ground or hit something that transferred the shock to the ground.

What is the story with the Barry Jennings/dead body thing?

Jennings states at one point in an interview with Dylan that he was told by a fireman not to look down, but that when you step over dead bodies, you know what you're stepping over. It's one of several puzzling statements made by Jennings. If there really were some dead bodies on the floor, wouldn't you want to look down so as to avoid actually stepping on them and possibly falling? Wouldn't the fireman leading the way take care to lead Jennings and Hess around the bodies? They were surely not so ubiquitous as to form a human carpet that could not be avoided to escape the building.

Jennings also claims that he was told by the fireman to run, but he couldn't run because his knees were shot, so the fireman tells him to crawl. Jennings' tale has probably grown a bit over the years, over beers and after dinner. It's a natural tendency for those near amazing events to embellish a bit, and I have little doubt that's what has happened here.

Is there video (I've got the audio) of the "pull building 6" segment of the PBS documentary? I (seem to) remember a Truther showing me the video, but I can't find it.

My Google Fu is stronger than yours (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4406049214568362566).:D

BTW, I strongly recommend the BBC WTC 7 show (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250) from last month. It's definitely the latest and greatest on the subject, especially the last half hour.

[deep]

(7) A good photo showing that it didn't "implode symmetrically into its own footprint".


If you want to argue semantics, that's fine, but you can't hide the visual evidence:


No part of the building collapsed faster than another part - it fell pretty evenly.
The debris field left after the collapse was tiny relative to the original size of the building.

In fact, it's obvious by looking the second photo posted under #7 that WTC7 did, in fact, collapse mostly into its own footprint. Remember, there was a 47 story building standing in that big empty space at one point - where did all the debris go?

[Tbone]

If you want to argue semantics, that's fine, but you can't hide the visual evidence:


No part of the building collapsed faster than another part - it fell pretty evenly.
The debris field left after the collapse was tiny relative to the original size of the building.
In fact, it's obvious by looking the second photo posted under #7 that WTC7 did, in fact, collapse mostly into its own footprint. Remember, there was a 47 story building standing in that big empty space at one point - where did all the debris go?

You claim that some of WTC7 was vapourised/evaporated during its collapse? Unless you think that somehow some of the building components vanished during the collapse, your comments about the relative size of the debris field makes little sense. The debris field was exactly the size it was supposed to be (and I use that phrase loosely).

[Grizzly Bear]

(5) What do we know about collapse times? Do we have seismic evidence?


This will be a cross category submission but this shows the penthouse collapse that preceded the global collapse. Perhaps this will serve some purpose for the above category:

4k6GMddY-lQ

The global collapse begins about 8 seconds AFTER the penthouse collapse for reference

[R.Mackey]

So, a few questions remaining.

Do we know anything at all about how long WTC7 took to collapse? If not, why not, why do Truthers say we do, what is wrong with their analysis? (Well, the two or three most common Truther analyses then).

To my knowledge, the best timeline about WTC 7's collapse is still contained in the Progress Report on WTC 7 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf) released some years ago by NIST, on Page 26. It does not contain an estimate of the final collapse duration.

Gregory Urich postulated that the collapse time of the final stage was approximately 6.5 seconds in length. I do not know where this number comes from, presumably from the various videos of the event. I think it's pretty close but no better than +/- 1 second in accuracy. See also the discussion in this thread (http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?t=109833).

Why we don't have a better estimate is that it really isn't important. The whole meme about collapse time proving or disproving a particular failure event is and always has been ridiculous. In order to materially speed up or slow down the collapse, damage done by nefarious means (explosives, beam weapons, thermite nano-buggery, whatever) has to be comprehensive and vast -- read "impossible to conceal." Otherwise, damage done through such means falls well within the bounds of uncertainty regarding structural condition.

NIST may release a more precise estimate of the final collapse time in its upcoming report. Or it may not. There are many things I'm waiting for in the report, but this is not one of them. It's a dead issue. I should note, however, that Dr. Bazant and Dr. Greening are two who disagree and think this issue is important, but theirs is a minority opinion; I invite you to follow up with them to get a feel for the potential significance.


How do we know what caused the structural damage to WTC7?

What is the story with the Barry Jennings/dead body thing?


One imagines that, had there been a different source of structural damage, it would have showed up on video... There's little question that the collapse of WTC 1 in particular caused extensive damage. Note, however, that in my opinion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3685247#post3685247) WTC 7's collapse was ultimately due to fire rather than structural damage, with the damage merely serving to accelerate and spread the fires. NIST may prove me wrong, of course, this is just my considered opinion.

As far as Barry Jennings goes, he clarified himself to the BBC in their recent examination of WTC 7. Some in the Truth Movement reject his comments therein for their own reasons, none of which I find compelling. You be the judge.

Hope that helps a little bit more than just telling you to wait for NIST to finish, anyway.

[Dr Adequate]

If you want to argue semantics, that's fine, but you can't hide the visual evidence:


No part of the building collapsed faster than another part - it fell pretty evenly.
The debris field left after the collapse was tiny relative to the original size of the building.

In fact, it's obvious by looking the second photo posted under #7 that WTC7 did, in fact, collapse mostly into its own footprint. Remember, there was a 47 story building standing in that big empty space at one point - where did all the debris go? The purpose of this thread involved asking questions or posting answers about WTC7.

Your post meets these criteria at the point where you ask: "where did all the debris go?" That was a question.

Answer: it formed part of the huge pile of debris.

[Dr Adequate]

Why we don't have a better estimate is that it really isn't important. The whole meme about collapse time proving or disproving a particular failure event is and always has been ridiculous.

In order to materially speed up or slow down the collapse, damage done by nefarious means (explosives, beam weapons, thermite nano-buggery, whatever) But that doesn't stop it from being a part of Truther arguments, does it?

Yes, I know that in order for WTC7 to fall "faster than the speed of freefall", the New World Order would have to strap rockets to it pointing down.

Nonetheless, there is the Truth Movement, so we should either say that the calculation has been done, and here it is; or we should explain why the data doesn't allow us to calculate the collapse time. Just saying "it is and always has been ridiculous" doesn't work when I'm trying to collate expert opinions and primary sources.

As far as Barry Jennings goes, he clarified himself to the BBC in their recent examination of WTC 7. So what did Jennings say to the BBC?

I really didn't follow the Jennings saga in the same way that I followed the Silverstein "pull" business. By a bit of googling around I found that Jennings thought some truthers had misquoted him, and that he was miffed, but I missed what he actually said, what the Truthers said he meant (well, apart from the dead bodies bit) and Jennings' clarification on the BBC. Please, somebody who followed this, give me a synopsis and links.

[Dr Adequate]

My Google Fu is stronger than yours (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4406049214568362566).:D You win this round ...

[R.Mackey]

But that doesn't stop it from being a part of Truther arguments, does it?

Yes, I know that in order for WTC7 to fall "faster than the speed of freefall", the New World Order would have to strap rockets to it pointing down.

Nonetheless, there is the Truth Movement, so we should either say that the calculation has been done, and here it is; or we should explain why the data doesn't allow us to calculate the collapse times. Just saying "it is and always has been ridiculous" doesn't work when I'm trying to collate expert opinions and primary sources.

I figured as much, which is why I linked you to the discussion I had with Gregory. As far as I know that encapsulates the state-of-art in calculation regarding WTC 7. There have been quite a few more detailed analyses of WTC 1 in particular, but not WTC 7. Gregory had prepared a paper for the Journal of 9/11 Studies with the revised version of that calculation as its centerpiece, but he was rebuffed. I haven't heard if he's made any additional progress.

For the exact timing of collapse, you will be limited to video analysis. No video I've seen provides a very accurate assessment, given the dust, obscurement of the base, and the simple fact that videotaping a collapsing building is a hazardous enterprise. I expect NIST will have the best and most comprehensive set of videos. But until then, accurately defining the collapse time will be original research. I can't just point you to it.

So what did Jennings say to the BBC?

Jennings basically said that he never saw bodies, and he was taken out of context. I don't have a transcript of the BBC show, nor do I know exactly when it will re-air, but it is worth an hour of your time if you can find it.

[Dr Adequate]

Jennings basically said that he never saw bodies, and he was taken out of context. I don't have a transcript of the BBC show, nor do I know exactly when it will re-air, but it is worth an hour of your time if you can find it.
* bangs head against desk *

What did he say? What did the Truthers say he said?

I could write a synopsis myself, it would read: "Truthers suck".

[Hokulele]

* bangs head against desk *

What did he say? What did the Truthers say he said?

I could write a synopsis myself, it would read: "Truthers suck".


The two main points were he experienced an explosion while coming down the stairwell (of course, assumed to be explosives), and he stepped over bodies in the lobby.

The direct quote mine from the interview is as follows:

"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."

The individual in a second clip detailed hearing further explosions and then described what he saw when he got down to the lobby:

"It was totally destroyed, it looked like King Kong had been through it and stepped on it and it was so destroyed i didn't know where I was. It was so destroyed that had to take me out through a hole in the wall, a makeshift hole I believe the fire department made to get me out."

Avery and Burmas, who played the two short clips of the interview prior to further analysis and more clips to be played on their own GCN radio show later tonight at 7pm CST, further described how the individual had witnessed dead bodies in the lobby of 7 and was told by the police not to look at them.


The "explosion" was debris from WTC 1 hitting WTC7, and the bodies were the result of a triage center set up in the lobbies

Linky (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2703576#post2703576).

[Dr Adequate]

The two main points were he experienced an explosion while coming down the stairwell (of course, assumed to be explosives), and he stepped over bodies in the lobby. Am I to take it that the first quote is from Jennings?

Bu that has nothing to do with Twoofism.

Did LC:FC just leap straight from what Jennings actually said to "witnessed dead bodies in the lobby of 7 and was told by the police not to look at them"?

What exactly happened? What did Jennings say, what did the Truthers say he said? Can we quote him saying that they suck?

Hence my love of primary sources. It doesn't matter a damn what I say about what you say about what some website says that Jennings says about what Loose Change says about Jennings.

What does it boil down to? Jennings said something, the Truthers said something, he said something on the BBC. What actually happened?

[Dr Adequate]

The two main points were he experienced an explosion while coming down the stairwell (of course, assumed to be explosives), and he stepped over bodies in the lobby ... The "explosion" was debris from WTC 1 hitting WTC7, and the bodies were the result of a triage center set up in the lobbies. Look, my first and over-riding question about this issue is whether Jennings actually talked about bodies. This is not in the Jennings quote that you gave me, it's just part of the LC woo.

Before we rush into claiming that Jennings must have seen the triage center when he reported "stepping over bodies", there is a prior question: did he report stepping over bodies?

[Hokulele]

Am I to take it that the first quote is from Jennings?

Bu that has nothing to do with Twoofism.


The bits in quote marks are direct quotes from the Jennings interview. They are twoofy in that the word "explosion" is used, which, in the world of twooferdom, means that bombs, nukes, space beams, or <insert exotic weapon of choice> were present. No further doubts at all.

To most normal people, it has nothing to do with twoofism in that most normal people know that not all explosions are due to bombs, nukes, etc. Normal people also know the meaning of the word simile.

Did LC:FC just leap straight from what Jennings actually said to "witnessed dead bodies in the lobby of 7 and was told by the police not to look at them"?


The relevant quote is "For me to see what I saw was unbelievable. And the firefighter that took us down kept saying, 'Do not look down.' And I kept saying, 'Why?' 'Do not look down.' And we were stepping over people."

The twoofers took this to mean he saw bodies, i.e. dead people.

What exactly happened? What did Jennings say, what did the Truthers say he said? Can we quote him saying that they suck?

Hence my love of primary sources. It doesn't matter a damn what I say about what you say about what some website says that Jennings says about what Loose Change says about Jennings.

What does it boil down to? Jennings said something, the Truthers said something, he said something on the BBC. What actually happened?


The original interview with Barry Jennings is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI&eurl=http://www.infowars.com/?p=2807), with Barry Jennings speaking starting around 3:00, the "stepping over people" bit at around 5:45.

Barry's response on the BBC program (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsOKkDwyfjg).

He is too honorable to say Twoofers suck, but the closest is the bit at the very end, "That's the way they portrayed me and I didn't appreciate it, so I told them to pull my interview. Do I think that our government would do something like that to its people? No. I honestly don't believe it."

[Hokulele]

Look, my first and over-riding question about this issue is whether Jennings actually talked about bodies. This is not in the Jennings quote that you gave me, it's just part of the LC woo.

Before we rush into claiming that Jennings must have seen the triage center when he reported "stepping over bodies", there is a prior question: did he report stepping over bodies?


Whoops, you wrote this while I was transcribing. Links and my transcription can be found in the above.

[deep]

The purpose of this thread involved asking questions or posting answers about WTC7.


The title of the thread is WTC7: The Facts, and the first sentence is, "Please help to assemble the factiest facts, from the primest of primary sources. Then I will put it together, format it nicely, and put it on the SkepticWiki".

Nowhere in the first post do I see anything about a question and answer format. You might want to edit it and add that in to avoid any future confusion.

[deep]

You claim that some of WTC7 was vapourised/evaporated during its collapse? Unless you think that somehow some of the building components vanished during the collapse, your comments about the relative size of the debris field makes little sense. The debris field was exactly the size it was supposed to be (and I use that phrase loosely).


Umm, no? Do you understand what it means for a building to "collapse into its own footprint"? A large portion of the debris fell down into the five-or-so basement/sub-basement levels.

[WildCat]

Umm, no? Do you understand what it means for a building to "collapse into its own footprint"? A large portion of the debris fell down into the five-or-so basement/sub-basement levels.
Basements?

[deep]

Basements?


Yes, they are the lowermost portion of a structure, partly or wholly below ground level.

[WildCat]

Yes, they are the lowermost portion of a structure, partly or wholly below ground level.
Tell us about the basements in WTC 7. Ever been in them?

[deep]

Tell us about the basements in WTC 7. Ever been in them?


I'm not going to waste my time playing one of your infantile games.

If you're unfamiliar with (old) WTC7's multiple basement and sub-basement levels, I suggest you go back and do more research.

[WildCat]

I'm not going to waste my time playing one of your infantile games.

If you're unfamiliar with (old) WTC7's multiple basement and sub-basement levels, I suggest you go back and do more research.
Can you direct me to where you found information on the basements of the old WTC 7?

[deep]

Can you direct me to where you found information on the basements of the old WTC 7?


What part of "I suggest you go back and do more research" did you not understand?

Search Google for "+wtc7 +basement" (no quotes) - there are 24,900 hits. Start there - you might even learn a few other interesting things in the process.

[WildCat]

What part of "I suggest you go back and do more research" did you not understand?

Search Google for "+wtc7 +basement" (no quotes) - there are 24,900 hits. Start there - you might even learn a few other interesting things in the process.
Narrow it down a bit deep44. Just link to a page detailing the basements of WTC 7.

Should be easy for a crack researcher like yourself!

I'm a poor researcher apparently, because everything I read claims that WTC 7 was built over an existing ConEd substation and didn't have basement levels. That's why I was hoping you could be more specific.

[Brainster]

Here's Dylan's interview with Jennings:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7PSziAiD9jM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7PSziAiD9jM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

'I said, "Where are we?" He said, "This was the lobby," and I said "You've gotta be kidding me." Total ruins. Total ruins. Now keep in mind when I came in there, the lobby had nice escalators, there was a huge lobby. And for me to see what I saw, it was unbelievable. And the firefighter who took us down, kept saying, "Do not look down," and I said, "Why?" "Do not look down." And stepping over people. And you know you can feel when you're stepping over people.'

Now in the BBC WTC-7 special, Barry said he did not actually see bodies, and if you listen closely to what he says to Dylan, he does not mention seeing bodies either.

[uk_dave]

I seem to recall (and we all know how dodgy that can be!) seeing a video where the reporter/survivor was walking through the debris outside of the buildings and was being told or telling people about the bady parts littering the area.

Now what if the firemen were warning Jennings that there were body parts in the debris they would have to walk through and, in his heightened state, witnessing everything that he had, he misunderstood/misremembered such a warning as applying to within the wtc7 building rather than confined to outside? Since he didn't actually witness the bodies or body parts but perhaps imagined that he was stepping over them (how does it feel to 'step over' a body rather than on it?) because of the warning he had been given.

[deep]

I'm a poor researcher apparently, because everything I read claims that WTC 7 was built over an existing ConEd substation and didn't have basement levels. That's why I was hoping you could be more specific.


See, you couldn't just come out and say this in the first place - you had to play childish games and waste time.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Search for "5 stories deep" and you'll find confirmation that the WTC7 basement existed (and was five stories deep). How ironic that the evidence is right there is a paper written by Mark Roberts.. but you had no idea where to start.

Mark my words - I will never waste another second of my life reading one of your messages, unless you somehow demonstrate through other people's quotations that you have matured.

[WildCat]

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Search for "5 stories deep" and you'll find confirmation that the WTC7 basement existed (and was five stories deep).
Congratulations! You are the first truther ever to find an error in one of Mark's papers!

But there was no basement. Perhaps Mark was referring to the fact that the first occupied floor was the 5th floor, *everything under that was the ConEd substation.

*eta: there were conference rooms and management offices below the 5th floor, but mostly mechanical.

[Myriad]

See, you couldn't just come out and say this in the first place - you had to play childish games and waste time.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Search for "5 stories deep" and you'll find confirmation that the WTC7 basement existed (and was five stories deep). How ironic that the evidence is right there is a paper written by Mark Roberts.. but you had no idea where to start.

Mark my words - I will never waste another second of my life reading one of your messages, unless you somehow demonstrate through other people's quotations that you have matured.


Interesting. You gave up the chance to show Mark Roberts made a mistake (I thought that was the lifelong dream of all truthers :) ) in order to insist you're correct about wtc7 having basement levels.

Unfortunately, you and Mark Roberts are both wrong about this one. (Look at any map of the "bathtub" foundation in which the WTC sub-levels were situated. Doesn't include 7's lot. The NIST interim report on WTC7 has plenty of details on how the foundation and lower floors of WTC7 were constructed.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[deep]

I picked Mark Roberts as the source for irony - not because it was the only source. There are plenty more.

From the Popular Mechanics "Rosie rebuttal" article: Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines.
Again, a reference to the 'basement'.

[Myriad]

The fuel tanks were in isolated spaces between the foundation caissons, which was otherwise (except where the tanks were) filled with compacted gravel fill. No basement, just a few below-ground compartments for the tanks, and probably just enough space around them for stairway access (from the substation, not from the office building) and to inspect the tanks and/or contain any leaks.

6,000 gallons is about 800 cubic feet. That's about the volume of a spacious closet or a very cramped bedroom, or of a medium sized tank truck like the ones you see on the highway every day. Five levels of basement under a building nearly the size of a football field would not be needed to house them.

Everyone understands the Popular Mechanics usage of the phrase "in the basement" to mean below ground floor level. That does not prove or even suggest the existence of five basement levels extensive enough to contain a large portion of the debris.

ETA: Slightly inaccurate above. The tanks were not between the caissons, but in the space between the caisson grillages (at the tops of the caissons) and the first floor. That space was filled with compacted gravel fill, except where the tanks were.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Dr Adequate]

That's the way they portrayed me and I didn't appreciate it, so I told them to pull my interview. Unfortunately, Truthers don't know what "pull" means ... you can just see 'em scratching their little heads ... "He wants us to pull it? But where will we get the thermite?"

Thanks for sorting this one out for me.

[WildCat]

I picked Mark Roberts as the source for irony - not because it was the only source. There are plenty more.

From the Popular Mechanics "Rosie rebuttal" article:
Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines.
Again, a reference to the 'basement'.
That's cute, but maybe you'd like to point out the basement in the FEMA paper? http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

Or did they simply forget about the 5 basement levels?

[A W Smith]

Deep44:
not as deep a thinker as you thought.

Building seven was built over an existing street level Con Ed sub station. Furthermore the slurry wall bathtub that held back the underground waters of the Hudson river did not enclose the footprint of building seven so it would have been impossible to build a five level deep basement under that footprint.

[WildCat]

See, you couldn't just come out and say this in the first place - you had to play childish games and waste time.
I just like to remind truthers that if this were a hold 'em game they're sitting on unsuited 7-2 while we have A-A.

And they never seem to drop no matter how much we raise... it's the gift that keeps on giving!

[bio]

The fuel tanks were in isolated spaces between the foundation caissons, which was otherwise (except where the tanks were) filled with compacted gravel fill.


... that was a typical "Jref-Debunker". ;)
like:
NIST was able to provide a full explanation of the total collapse
because
it cannot provide a full explanation of the total collapse.

[deep]

Deep44:
not as deep a thinker as you thought.


You see the link posted in your signature? That's where the "five story basement" claim came from.

Fill in your own joke.

[Dr Adequate]

I asked for facts. If anyone wants to start a thread entitled: "WTC7: The Vacuous Whining Of The Truth Movement", they should feel free.

[Myriad]

... that was a typical "Jref-Debunker". ;)
like:
NIST was able to provide a full explanation of the total collapse
because
it cannot provide a full explanation of the total collapse.


And that was a typical truther. Vaguely implying unexplained flaws in my reasoning using bizarre analogies described incomprehensibly, rather than simply showing evidence that five basement levels under wtc7 existed.

Or are you referring to the slight error I made in describing the placement of the tanks, which I then (1) realized I had made, (2) admitted I made, and (3) corrected? I agree that's typical JREF debunker -- or at least, those are three things I rarely if ever see truthers do.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[deep]

I asked for facts. If anyone wants to start a thread entitled: "WTC7: The Vacuous Whining Of The Truth Movement", they should feel free.


Interesting, because you just posted this a few messages back:'Unfortunately, Truthers don't know what "pull" means ... you can just see 'em scratching their little heads ... "He wants us to pull it? But where will we get the thermite?"'
Is that a fact? Who said that, exactly?

Maybe you should set the example and abide by your own rule - or just go start another thread called "WTC7: I'm a hypocrite".

[Dr Adequate]

Is that a fact? No, that is a joke.

Is there any other aspect of the bleedin' obvious you'd like explaining to you? Something, perhaps, relating to WTC7 in some way?

[Dr Adequate]

Here's a nice picture of WTC7 in the debris field of WTC1.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116/144/320/WTC7-1.0.jpg

And here's some seismic data (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/fact_sheet.htm) putting the duration of the collapse at 18 seconds.

[Caustic Logic]

He is too honorable to say Twoofers suck, but the closest is the bit at the very end, "That's the way they portrayed me and I didn't appreciate it, so I told them to pull my interview. Do I think that our government would do something like that to its people? No. I honestly don't believe it."

The pattern repeats... Silverstein tells the Fire Chief to pull tower 7 with explosives... the work crews pull tower 6 with a crane... Jennings orders hos own interview pulled digitally... the many methods of controlled demolition, sure, but it's getting way too coincidental for me. :confused::lol:

ETA photos and damage
I did these a while back. There may be errors, but this is the gist of the damage you can see I have all the photos called on, if anyone wants I can post any of them in the res I have.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/WTC7_SouthFaceDamage2.jpg
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/WTC7_SouthFaceDamage1.jpg

[Reality Believer]

Here is a good aerial shot of the debris plume.

[A W Smith]

You see the link posted in your signature? That's where the "five story basement" claim came from.

Fill in your own joke.


Mark says that PDF paper has been superceded by a live version and that the five level description is incorrect.

your are wrong deep

[RedIbis]

I just like to remind truthers that if this were a hold 'em game they're sitting on unsuited 7-2 while we have A-A.

And they never seem to drop no matter how much we raise... it's the gift that keeps on giving!

And how many times has a hold em player gone down in flames because he went all-in with pocket aces, only to be burned on fifth street by an inside straight?

[boloboffin]

How do you build an inside straight with 7-2, RedIbis?

[RedIbis]

How do you build an inside straight with 7-2, RedIbis?

If I understand your question, one way would be to get 6-5-3 off suit on the flop and a 4 on the turn or river.

[boloboffin]

If I understand your question, one way would be to get 6-5-4 off suit on the flop and a 3 on the turn or river.

That's not an inside straight with 7-2.

ETA: How strange of you to change your cards on edit. That's still not an inside straight with 7-2. In both those examples, the 2 is irrelevant.

[chillzero]

Perhaps we could return to the topic, please?

[Jwheelz]

Here are a few photos the show some of the damage to the side facing the towers.

This webpage http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/wtc7-new-evidence-from-old-photos.html
contains some good information about building 7.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/179874899bb8687c32.bmp ('http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13348')

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/179874899bb869b0c8.bmp ('http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13349')

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/179874899bb86ab67b.bmp ('http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13350')

Cropped
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/179874899bbb93a25d.bmp ('http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13352')

Grayscale with increased brightness and contrast in the boxed area shown below in order to enhance gray level separation.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/179874899bbb9459e5.bmp ('http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13353')

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/179874899bbb9290ec.bmp ('http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13351')

[Brainster]

Here's a nice picture of WTC7 in the debris field of WTC1.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116/144/320/WTC7-1.0.jpg

And here's some seismic data (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/fact_sheet.htm) putting the duration of the collapse at 18 seconds.

It is my impression that the seismic data do not give the collapse times per se, what they give is the duration of time that the buildings were actually pelting the ground. That is, the initial seismic event is when the first part of the building reaches the ground (in this case the east penthouse). Remember, Lamont-Doherty gives the duration of the North Tower collapse at 8 seconds. I don't think anybody can watch that collapse and credibly claim it only took 8 seconds; my best guess is 15 seconds.

[RedIbis]

That's not an inside straight with 7-2.

ETA: How strange of you to change your cards on edit. That's still not an inside straight with 7-2. In both those examples, the 2 is irrelevant.

Good call. Sorry for the derail.

ETA: It would still beat the pocket aces, and it might be still considered an inside straight since you're getting a card at either end.

[Dr Adequate]

It's always hard to tell with the south face pictures whether you're looking at a hole or just a grey blurry thing.

This looks clearest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg

Captain Chris Boyle (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html) was talking about:

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.

[R.Mackey]

It is my impression that the seismic data do not give the collapse times per se, what they give is the duration of time that the buildings were actually pelting the ground. That is, the initial seismic event is when the first part of the building reaches the ground (in this case the east penthouse).

This is correct. Seismographs detect displacement, caused by impulse fed into the ground. Impulse at the ground equals impulse on the falling structure. While the structures are collapsing, there isn't very much impulse, because the lower structure (in the case of WTC 1 and 2) resists only a little bit -- that's why the collapses are rapid. Once the mass hits the ground, however, different story.

WTC 7, on the other hand, is probably a better fit to seimography, because the plane of interaction is closer to the ground. It's also a more rapid collapse for this reason. But who knows exactly what happened in the interior for the ten seconds or so before the perimeter all came down, or whether that would be easily detectable on the seismograph. This is a subjective call and only a few people are qualified to give us a worthwhile opnion on what the traces really say in this case.

[Dr Adequate]

I might add, Dr A, that one thing I haven't seen apart from LashL's excellent work on the "profit motive" in The Doc's paper ... Linky? Thanks.

[Dr Adequate]

Okay, here's a start.

WTC7

So far it deals with what actually happened, with "controlled demolition" and with "pull"; it doesn't yet discuss the woo relating to motive.

Any comments or criticisms will be appreciated. Unless they're frickin' stupid.

[Hokulele]

Minor nitpick, I was under the impression that the damage to WTC 7 was entirely from debris from WTC 1. The article implies that debris from WTC 2 was involved as well. Is there any evidence for this?

[Dr Adequate]

Minor nitpick, I was under the impression that the damage to WTC 7 was entirely from debris from WTC 1. The article implies that debris from WTC 2 was involved as well. Is there any evidence for this? Thanks, perhaps I should make that clearer. There was a little debris from 2, but it just broke a few windows, it didn't do much to the structure, or start a fire, or cut the power, or anything serious.

[Brainster]

Thanks, perhaps I should make that clearer. There was a little debris from 2, but it just broke a few windows, it didn't do much to the structure, or start a fire, or cut the power, or anything serious.

I thought so too until I saw the BBC special. While it's true that the collapse of the South Tower was not anywhere near as destructive to WTC 7 as the North Tower collapse was, the extent of the damage to the south side of WTC 7 was quite startling; all the windows on the lower floors were blown into the building. And I think the fall of the South Tower did cut off the power in the area generally, although I am not positive on that one.

[Dr Adequate]

I thought so too until I saw the BBC special. While it's true that the collapse of the South Tower was not anywhere near as destructive to WTC 7 as the North Tower collapse was, the extent of the damage to the south side of WTC 7 was quite startling; all the windows on the lower floors were blown into the building. And I think the fall of the South Tower did cut off the power in the area generally, although I am not positive on that one. The NIST thing (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf) (pages 14 - 15) said that the power and phones were still working in 7 after 2 collapsed.

Here's their summary of the damage, perhaps I should just quote it.

Debris Damage from WTC 2
After WTC 2 collapsed:
􀂉 Some south face glass broken at lower floors
􀂉 Dust covered lobby areas at floors 1 and 3
􀂉 Power on in building, phones working
􀂉 No fires observed

Debris Damage from WTC 1
After WTC 1 collapsed:
􀂉 Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 Promenade
􀂉 No heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating
􀂉 SW Corner Damage – floors 8 to 18
􀂉 South face damage between two exterior columns - roof level
down 5 to 10 floors, extent not known
􀂉 South Face Damage –
• middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• large debris hole near center around 14th floor
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby