COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

Building 7

The 47-story tower no plane hit, and the long fight over why it fell

← Interactive guide and chronology · The 9/11 hub: the story, the full timeline and every file · What people say ↓

What NIST concluded

Thermal expansion, Floor 13 and Column 79.

Debris from the North Tower started fires on the lower floors. The water supply for the sprinklers there came from city mains broken by the tower collapses. NIST found that heat from the uncontrolled fires made floor beams on the east side expand, pushing a girder on Floor 13 off its seat at Column 79. Floors fell onto those below, Column 79 buckled, and the failure spread across the building. [1][2]

NIST called WTC 7 “the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires,” and said its fires were similar to those in other tall buildings where sprinklers did not work. It added that the debris damage did not start the collapse; the fires did. [2]

NIST considered and rejected a blast. It calculated that the smallest charge able to cut the critical column would have produced 130 to 140 decibels half a mile away; no such sound is on any recording, and no witness reported one. It also rejected diesel fuel stored in the building as a cause. [2]

What we can’t tell you. No WTC 7 steel was available to examine: it could not be identified once removed from the site.

The sources

  1. NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (2008) ↗

    Fire-induced thermal expansion, the Floor 13 girder and Column 79.

  2. NIST: Questions and answers about the NIST WTC 7 investigation ↗

    NIST’s answers on the 2.25 seconds of free fall, the 130-decibel blast it says was not heard, diesel fuel and thermite.

The Alaska study

Four years of modeling paid for by the movement.

From 2015 to 2019 a team led by Leroy Hulsey at the University of Alaska Fairbanks modeled the building. Its March 2020 report concluded that fire did not cause the collapse, that NIST’s girder walk-off could not have happened as described, and that the collapse was a near-simultaneous failure of every column. The project budget was $316,153, paid by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. [1]

The team published all its input and output files, more than 250 gigabytes. NIST, by contrast, withheld some of its connection models on the ground that they could be used to plan the destruction of similar buildings; a federal court upheld that in 2011. [1][2]

The study did not identify what did destroy the building and found no physical evidence of explosives. Its critics note its funding and that it set out to test a single alternative; its supporters say NIST’s refusal to release everything makes independent checks harder.

What we can’t tell you. We could not find a formal engineering-society review of the UAF report.

The sources

  1. University of Alaska Fairbanks (Hulsey, Quan, Xiao), March 2020: A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 ↗

    Concludes fire did not cause the collapse and that it involved near-simultaneous failure of every column. Funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth ($316,153).

  2. NIST: Questions and answers about the NIST WTC 7 investigation ↗

    NIST’s answers on the 2.25 seconds of free fall, the 130-decibel blast it says was not heard, diesel fuel and thermite.

The two men in the stairwell

Barry Jennings, Michael Hess and the “explosion” inside Building 7.

Two city officials were among the last people inside WTC 7: Barry Jennings and Michael Hess, Mayor Giuliani’s chief lawyer. NIST’s account is that they went up to the emergency management center on the 23rd floor, found it empty, and started down the stairs when the elevators failed as the South Tower fell. At the 6th floor the North Tower collapsed: the lights went out, the stairwell filled with smoke and debris, and they climbed back to the 8th floor, broke two windows and called for help. Firefighters brought them out. [1]

On 9/11 Hess told a reporter he had walked down to “the eighth floor where there was an explosion.” Jennings said he heard explosions, and in an interview for the makers of the film Loose Change he described stepping over people on the way out. To many people that is the strongest eyewitness evidence of demolition. [2][3]

In 2008 Jennings told the BBC: “I said it felt like I was stepping over them but I never saw any,” and that he had asked the filmmakers to pull his interview. The film’s director, Dylan Avery, said nothing was taken out of context. The BBC also found Hess, who said in his first interview since 9/11 that the lights went out and the building shook like an earthquake, and that he was now certain he had not heard an explosion. He had assumed one on the day. [2][3]

The dispute is about timing. If the blast came before the North Tower fell, it is hard to explain; if it was the tower falling onto WTC 7, it is what NIST describes. NIST found the North Tower severed seven columns on the building’s southwest side. Its lead investigator told the BBC the damage “really caused noises that were incredibly loud.” [1][3]

What we can’t tell you. The timing rests on NIST’s and the BBC’s reconstruction. Activists who interviewed Jennings say the BBC got his chronology wrong; the BBC stands by it.

The sources

  1. NIST NCSTAR 1-9: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7 (2008), section 6.5.2 ↗

    NIST’s account of the two city employees trapped in WTC 7’s stairwell when the North Tower fell, and of the damage the tower did to the building.

  2. BBC News, 4 July 2008: “Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7” (The Conspiracy Files, archived copy) ↗

    The BBC’s 2008 summary of the WTC 7 arguments, quoting Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Danny Jowenko, Mark Loizeaux, Gene Corley, Daniel Nigro and Barry Jennings.

  3. BBC editors’ blog, 21 October 2008: “Caught up in a conspiracy theory,” by Mike Rudin (archived copy) ↗

    The producer of the BBC’s WTC 7 programmes on Barry Jennings’s timeline and Michael Hess’s first interview since 9/11.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

7 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

All 162 rated claims ↗

← The 9/11 hub: the story, the full timeline and every file

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFiles911 shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFiles911.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.