Part 2

Act IV

At this point the filmmakers switch gears. For largely the remainder of the film, they will now focus their attention on proponents of the official story. First the film explores how much damage was inflicted on the building. Several accounts are given by both firefighters and Steve Spak, a photographer who was able to get close enough to take pictures. Most of the information presented here is not new, although it was only recently discovered what the full extent of damage was to the south side. Spak also calims that he witnessed smoke and fire on almost every floor in WTC7, a point which Richard Gage disputes. Gage points to the fact that the winds were northerly that day and that as the wind whipped around WTC7, it created a zone of low pressure air on the south side. This had the effect of drawing smoke up from the rest of the WTC complex (which was still on fire) and creating the illusion that all of the smoke was coming from WTC7. Gage does not dispute that there were fires and that some of the smoke is from WTC7, just that it appears that a large part of it is from neighboring buildings. In fact there is strong evidence to support Gage’s hypothesis : Pictures clearly show that the smoke and debris from WTC2’s destruction were also sucked into a low pressure zone and clung to the south side of WTC1. The effect is quite pronounced and in fact one could be forgiven for believing that every floor on WTC1 was on fire ! (See http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-53.jpg and http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-55.jpg).

Next the BBC again attacks conspiracy theorists by alleging that they claim that ’not just the government and foreign intelligence, but police, fire service and even the media’ are alleged to be involved in the conspiracy. Again, it must be reiterated that very few "conspiracy theorists" believe that the rescue services or even the media were actively involved in the cover-up, and that they were duped like everyone else. As usual, the filmmakers have no direct source for this statement, and in fact do not even attribute it - merely saying it as a statement of fact. Finally, the BBC attempts to answer its report of WTC7’s collapse ahead of time. Richard Porter of the BBC discusses how the confusion of the day led to the report and that "[our] investigations very strongly suggest we were working on the basis of an incorrect news agency report." They then mention that Reuters also had put out a false report. However, it was never in question that only the BBC put out the report, since CNN also made the report. Porter never directly claims that the BBC source was Reuters either. The question still remains as to the actual source of the report ! The only thing the BBC can say is that it was an erroneous local story - but of course that day EVERY story from New York City was a local news story ! Therefore the source of the report is still left unanswered. Why can’t the BBC simply investigate the matter with the supposed due diligence they are famed for ? Simply track down the original source - who it was and where it came from. This is exceedingly simple - and yet the inability of anyone to take any responsibility is amazing. Even more amazing, the filmmakers then try to exploit the situation by interviewing Jane Standley - who opines at the emotional torment caused by crazy conspiracy theorists. Again, the filmmakers bring in the emotions to try to demonize all "conspiracy theorists." Instead of sticking to the topic at hand - the investigation of the destruction of WTC7 - they continually roam into editorializing.

Next the filmmakers talk about the Barry Jennings controversy about dead bodies in the lobby, with the clear spin that "conspiracy theorists" constantly misrepresent witnesses. Thankfully Jenning’s actual interview is allowed to be played and helps demonstrate to the viewer the actual situation, which is mostly blown out of proportion by the filmmakers.

Next we return to the mysterious melted steel from WTC7. Now however, the filmmakers inform us that their is nothing special about it : "it was attacked by a liquid slag... a liquid containing iron, sulfur, and oxygen." The hypothesis is that the sulfur in the gypsum board was responsible as the fire burned in the rubble pile. However, the description of this slag seems to match thermate by products almost to a T : Molten iron, sulfur, and oxygen. Therefore, I believe more study is necessary to determine the cause. Until an experiment is performed to compare the effects of each cause, this remains an open question.

Finally, we are introduced to Shyam Sunder and NIST. Sunder first tries to deflect criticism of the length of time required for the WTC7 report saying that "we’ve been at this for a little over two years, and doing a two or two and a half year investigation is not at all unusual." While this is completely true, the reason the criticism is leveled at NIST is because they have constantly set and broken their own deadlines over the years. They continually promise a 6 month release, but have yet to produce. Their investigation is opaque and the progress updates are very vague and lacking in any detail. Sunder also claims that they are moving as fast as possible but that they require high fidelity computer models and a certain level or rigor in the analysis. This is almost laughable considering the massive gaps in NIST’s original WTC 1&2 report, in which they pruned scenarios and in the end had to throw out all their data in order to declare that floor sagging caused massive inward bowing (see my post on the subject (http://www.911blogger.com/node/16523) as well as the Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com) for more detail). What is also funny is that NIST had already concluded it was fire - before the investigations began. When one starts with assumption the truth of what one is trying to prove, the results are always the same. Finally NIST states its hypothesis, that as the fire progressed some of the steel members simply sagged and disconnected from the core columns - leaving a longer unsupported length and leading to global collapse. Of course the Cardington tests results may conflict with this hypothesis and it will be interesting to see if NIST contrasts these empirical data with its computer generated models. As to the how and why of total, rapid, and complete implosion, NIST has only this to say : "it turns out than when you have connections that essentially don’t have strength for the loads they are being subjected to and you have this massive failure of a column it does not take time - the structure has lost all integrity at that point in time." It seems quite likely that NIST has not modeled the actual collapse - as this sounds almost exactly the same as their explanation for column instability in the WTC towers. We shall have to see, but this explanation just does not cut it, no pun intended. If it takes demolition teams months of planning and careful execution to implode buildings half the size of WTC7, you can be sure that fires could not do it - otherwise CDI would be out of business ! Let us hope the NIST report is more detailed than this, once it comes out that is.

Finally even Richard Clark gets in on it and asserts that the government is incompetent and can’t keep secrets. As well the filmmakers conclude with interviews with Ronald Wieck and Mark Roberts, who denigrate conspiracy theorists as true believers, unable to ever accept data which contradicts their position. The film ends with Daniel Nigro opining conspiracy theory as fiction, fund to read, but fiction.

Well, let us do a tally at the end of the documentary of the data presented for each side :

Pro Demolition

* It looked like a typical controlled demolition
* The building collapsed at free fall speed
* The evidence was rapidly destroyed so that no proper forensic investigation could be carried out
* Some eyewitnesses both outside an in the building reported explosions and damage, which has been suggested to have been the collapses of WTC2 - but not established.
* Danny Jowenko, a CD expert believes it was demolished
* Iron rich spheres were found in the dust - with NO prosaic explanation yet proffered that is even plausible
* Unreacted thermite (of a very fine quality) appears to have be found in the dust as well
* Super thermite exists in a sol gel form, capable of being molded and cutting steel
* Surface temperatures of the rubble pile were in excess of 700C
* Corroded steel members were found, a prosaic explanation of gypsum is possible, as is an explanation of thermate

Anti Demolition

* A specific engineer in the OEM predicted the collapse time
* The building appeared unstable during the time up to its collapse
* Some eyewitnesses report not hearing explosions, others have
* Daniel Nigro claims that if it was demolition he would know
* Mark Loizeaux claims the building could not have been rigged quickly or covertly (although if only a single floor is needed this may be possible)
* Loizeaux claims that thermite is not precise enough, but fires are (by implication of course)
* Loizeaux claims there is no such thing as super-thermite that could be used to fell a building
* Many of the commentators do not believe it was demolished and that conspiracy theories are disgusting

Pro Fire

* The building was on fire and not fought that day
* It was an unusually designed building
* Computers models suggest that some of the floor beams may have failed, which may have lead to column instability in particular columns, which may have lead to global collapse, which may have occurred rapidly

Anti Fire

* Fire is highly unlikely to implode a skyscraper, as teams of experts with hi tech tools are normally required to do this. If the fire hypothesis is true, controlled demolition would not be necessary.
* No other tall building has ever collapsed from fire, let alone in the manner of WTC7
* While the building was on fire, there is little evidence to suggest that the entire building was engulfed, nearby fires in WTC 5 and 6 would cloud the view
* WTC7 was damaged, but as far NIST can determine this was localized to an exterior column running the length of the building and the south west corner - the building purportedly failed in the east side.
* Loizeaux statement that thermite would not be precise enough to cut all the columns at the same time implies that fire would also not be precise enough to do the job

Conclusion

The final score does not seem good for the pro fire theory. There is no hard data on it, and the historical record does not support it. Plus even Loizeaux has by implication testified against it. The pro demolition theory also outweighs the arguments against it. Many of the contrary arguments are also based on personal opinions rather than data.

Thus, in the end the balance of evidence both supports the demolition theory and counts against the fire theory. Although it is clear the BBC attempted at the end to put a pro fire spin on its documentary, it is interesting to note that by the numbers, the film actually supports the demolition theory ! Overall this film was much better than the BBC’s first film, which was completely laden with straw men, personal attacks, and charged emotions. Unfortunately, this film also suffers from this disease in parts, and the filmmakers appear to try to magnify its effect. Overall the film is educational for those who have not seen the evidence on WTC7, although the clear bias is designed to assuage the average viewer’s curiosity and imply that the mystery is solved. What is clear though is this : When viewed on the balance of evidence, the logical hypothesis is that WTC7 did not collapse due to fire, and that it is likely, just like the 9/11 attacks themselves, that the hand of man was actively involved.