4. FICTITIOUS DEBRIS DAMAGE

Chris SarnsEditor’s note: To this day, most people, including many architects and engineers, are not aware that a third skyscraper, World Trade Center Building 7, mysteriously collapsed along with the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. The official report on this building’s collapse by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has been challenged by many reputable and credentialed technical professionals. The NIST analysis has not undergone the rigors of scientific peer review – the typical pathway for validating significant scientific theories. Chris Sarns’ research appears in Dr. David Ray Griffin’s book titled The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7. The studies below represent years of work by Chris Sarns in unraveling some of the most glaring inconsistencies and outright frauds in the NIST report on World Trade Center 7. He demonstrates that the NIST’s theory of the fire-induced collapse of Building 7 is faulty and misleading.

The destruction of this skyscraper on September 11 was truly unprecedented in the history of high-rise buildings. More than 1,900 architects and engineers at AE911Truth are demanding a new investigation.

Chris Sarns has also been deeply involved in the work of AE911Truth, where he provides his expertise on WTC 7.

Part 1 of Chris Sarns’ report, regarding the burned-out fire in WTC7, is available here.

Part 2 of Chris Sarns' report, examining NIST's claim of thermal expansion, is available here.

Part 3 of Chris Sarns' report, examining NIST's omission of shear studs in its WTC7 analysis, is available here.

Quotes from the NIST WTC7 report are shown in "brown"

---

The fictitious “10-story gouge” claimed early on by NIST in WTC 7's south face is exposed.

 

I first noticed the conundrum that suggested that the “10-story gouge” in the side of WTC7 could not have actually existed back on September 6, 2006 while “debating” with Ryan Mackey at the JREF forum:

Conundrum in June 2004 progress report

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"

"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed" NIST June 2004 Progress Report, Appendix L p. 18 [pdf p. 22]

Obviously, debris large enough to create a 10-story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the building, would have landed in the 1st floor lobby along with everything it brought down, including the 3rd floor lobby.

NIST depicted this ‘damage’ in the graphic on pg 23 as “Possible region of impact damage” and again on pages 31 & 32 as “Approximate region of impact damage”

June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST SP 1000-5)

9/11 researcher Winston Smith found another quote that was in conflict with the 10-story gouge on page 20 of the FEMA report Chapter 5.

"According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner." FEMA, Chapter 5 p.20

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Chapter 5, WTC 7

Later I found two more quotes that were in conflict with the 10-story gouge. Chief Frank Fellini [in charge of operations at West and Vesey]: "…building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the tower. When it fell it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street."

World Trade Center Task Force Interview – Chief Frank Fellini – Interview Date: December 3, 2001

Also on page 18 of NIST 2004 Progress report, Appendix L, was a well-obfuscated quote that was in conflict with the 10-story gouge. It is only after careful reading that it becomes clear:

"debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor*), noted that the atrium glass was still intact"  NIST June 2004 Progress Report, Appendix L p. 18 [pdf p. 22]

*The atrium, not the damage, extended from the ground floor to the 5th floor. The “10-story gouge” would have taken out much of the atrium glass.

Post on the “10-story gouge” at the JREF Forum on April 10, 2007.

The evidence for the ‘10 story gouge’:

Knowing of these contradictions, Shyam Sunder still stated in Popular Mechanics’ article "Debunking the 9/11 Myths."

"Sundar: On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

He stated this as if it were a fact.

Popular Mechanics (PM) says:

"NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research."

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The World Trade Center

 

Davin Coburn, editor/researcher for Popular Mechanics, told Charles Goyette in this radio interview that he had seen a photo of the 10-story gouge

Coburn: "When the North Tower collapsed … there was damage to Building 7 … What we found out was … about 25% of the building’s south face had been carved away from it …"

“We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate …”

Goyette: "Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can’t see them."

Coburn: "Correct."

AZ Radio Host Deconstructs Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Disinfo Researcher

 

Final post on the "10-story gouge" at the Loose Change forum on November 14, 2007:

The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

In the final report on WTC 7, the debris damage from WTC 1 is shown in this graphic.

The 10-story gouge – middle 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face from floor 10 to the ground – as shown in Figure L-31 above, is not there.

NCSTAR 1-9 vol. 2

Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7