The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) appears to be moving in the direction of a “conspiracy theory” about the destruction of WTC-7 on 9/11 just as a new witness has emerged reporting extensive destruction inside the building many hours before it would be demolished. According to James Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, these turns of events provide further confirmation for the conclusion that WTC-7 was brought down by a controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET. “Anyone who googles WTC-7 will see an event that looks exactly like a controlled demolition, just as Peter Jennings and Dan Rather reported at the time. That is why this event makes NIST so uncomfortable.”
WTC-7, a 47-story building also known as the Soloman Brothers Building, collapsed about 7 hours after the Twin Towers were demolished. It was hit by no jet aircraft and had no jet-fuel based fires. “It did have a few modest fires, which could have been easily controlled but were allowed to burn,” Fetzer said. “Remarkably, the fire alarm system in WTC-7 was turned off at 6:47 AM/ET and placed on ‘TEST’ status for a period of eight hours.” In its latest press release (29 June 2007), NIST acknowledges that NIST is “considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse . . . (and) led to (WTC-7’s) structural failure.”
A new eyewitness inside WTC-7 on the morning of 9/11, heard explosions before either of the Twin Towers collapsed. He was summoned to the Office of Emergency Management Operating Center (OEMOC), also known as “Rudy’s Bunker,” on the 23rd floor of the building. The center had been especially prepared for the Mayor and other officials to gather in case of a terrorist attack or other emergency. Some have wondered why Giuliani did not go to the OEMOC but instead remained some distance from the World Trade Center. This witness, who testified at official hearings and whose identity will be revealed in the general-theater-release version of “Loose Change,” has information that sheds light on this and other questions about WTC-7.
Rolf Lindgren, former Vice-Chair of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin and independent scholar of the events of 9/11, transcribed the testimony and edited it for clarity of English. The complete transcript is below. The witness went to WTC-7 after the first plane struck the North Tower and before the second hit the South Tower. When he arrived at the 23rd floor, he found half-eaten sandwiches and still-steaming coffee. He made some phone calls and was told to leave “right away.” Someone ran into the Center and led him to a stairwell. “When we reached the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way; there was an explosion and the landing gave way.” He had to climb back up to the 8th floor to find a way out. When he got to the lobby, “the lobby was totally destroyed. It looked like King Kong had come through and stepped on it.. And it was so destroyed I didn’t know where I was . . . (and) they had to take me out through a hole in the wall, . . . a hole that I believe the fire department made to get me out.”
WTC-7 has been widely regarded within the 9/11 research community as the most blatant of all “smoking guns” that disprove the official account. According to David Ray Griffin, a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and the movement’s leading representative, the building showed all the characteristics of a controlled demolition: an abrupt, complete, and total collapse at freefall speed, which was perfectly symmetrical and into its own foundation, as he has explained in his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking (2007). “The ‘blast events’ this witness is describing are not ‘hypothetical,” Fetzer observed, “but actual. Only actual events can bring about effects. So it’s a bit labored for NIST to say it’s considering whether ‘hypothetical’ blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. They could not. That requires real blast events.”
The witness, who was interviewed by Dylan Avery (with audio clips played on Alex Jones’ and on Dylan’s shows), has expressed his puzzlement over the destruction of the building. “Well, I’m just confused about one thing and one thing only,” he said, “why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place? I’m very confused about that. I know what I heard; I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy. If it was the fuel oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.” But the collapse was symmetrical. “There was a large tank of diesel in the building,” Fetzer said, “but diesel burns at a low temperature and diesel is not explosive. It cannot have brought about this collapse.”
Anyone who has watched the building come down appreciates that it has all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition. Even James Glanz, a reporter for The New York Times, admitted in an early story (29 November 2001) that the collapse of WTC-7 is even more perplexing than is the destruction of the Twin Towers, because no reinforced, steel structure high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire in the history of structural engineering. “Indeed, no steel structure high-rise collapsed due to fire before 9/11 nor after 9/11 – nor, if our research is correct, on 9/11,” Fetzer said. “None of these fires burned long enough or hot enough to cause steel to weaken, much less melt. It must be embarrassing for the scientists at the NIST to defend these ridiculous theories.”
Lindgren, who has extensive experience with press releases, added, “Friday afternoon is the best time of the week for the government to bury unpleasant news. Since NIST insists it has found ‘no evidence’ of a controlled demolition, it must not consider the videos of WCT-7’s collapse as ‘evidence,’ because they leave no room for doubt. The fires in Building 7 provide a good cover story to hide the fact that powerful explosives brought it down.” He is also not impressed with Giuliani’s excuse for not going to his command center, which is that another plane could have been headed for it. “But if another plane was headed toward the World Trade Center, then he should have directed that the firemen be removed from all the buildings, which he did not do.” (See here).
There were other oddities related to WTC-7, including Larry Silverstein reporting (during a PBS interview) that he had suggested to the fire commander that the best thing to do might be to “pull it” (where, he said, “They made the decision to pull, and we watched the building come down”) and the BBC broadcast of a report of the collapse of “the Solomon Brothers Building” at least 23 minutes before the event would actually occur. “This was stunning,” Fetzer said, “because you could see WTC-7 in the background over her left shoulder as she reported its collapse. It is hard to imagine a more revealing demonstration of the entanglement of the intelligence agencies, the administration, and the mass media. And a ‘terrorism drill’ was scheduled for the next day.” The PBS interview and the BBC report are archived on the Scholars site at 911scholars.org.
“If Rosie O’Donnell had talked about ‘blast events initiating the collapse of WTC-7″, Fetzer said, “she would have been labeled a ‘conspiracy theorist.’ But then the official government account of 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacking four commercial airlines, outfoxing the most sophisticated air defense system in the world to perpetrate these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan is only the most ‘outrageous’ conspiracy theory of them all. I guess we should be grateful that NIST is moving inch by inch toward a more adequate explanation of what actually happened on 9/11, which bears no relationship at all to what we have been told. Given the cumulative evidence, we are not ‘conspiracy theorists’ but ‘conspiracy realists.'”
WTC 7 Eyewitness Testimony Transcribed by Rolf Lindgren (edited for clarity with notes): Go to http://911scholars.org and click on “Press Releases” at the top.