Daily Mail in laughable hit piece that claims weakening of ‘exterior beams’ caused WTC 7 collapse
Paul Joseph Watson
November 2, 2011
In perhaps one of the weakest and downright laughable 9/11 hit pieces ever published, the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper, not noted for its commitment to accuracy, presents old footage as new to make the ludicrous claim that WTC 7 collapsed due to “exterior” damage caused by fires.
The Mail article claims the video was recently released via a FOIA request and represents new footage, yet virtually identical footage has been available for years, as well as high quality photographs which depict the same scene showing World Trade Center Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, shortly before its collapse in the late afternoon of 9/11.
The story, written by Meghan Keneally [pictured above], claims that the “unseen” footage “kills the conspiracy theories” surrounding the collapse of WTC 7 as it shows the building being “consumed by fire”.
According to Keneally, the clip proves that “Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center.” Presumably, she means the twin towers of the World Trade Center which had already collapsed into rubble eight hours before WTC 7 imploded.
In reality, the footage shows nothing that we didn’t already know – specifically that the building was not “consumed by fire,” as has happened in the case of numerous other modern buildings which did not collapse despite being ravaged by flames at every level.
The video clip only serves to confirm the fact that the fires in WTC 7 were relatively limited and by no means had “consumed” the building. The fires were nowhere near powerful enough to threaten the structural integrity of a 47-story building.
However, this is by no means the most ludicrous aspect of the Mail hit piece. Keneally goes on to bizarrely claim that the footage proves how “the building’s exterior frame could no longer withstand the high temperatures,” and how the “buckling” of these “exterior metal beams,” “led to floors falling in on one another, causing the building to collapse.”
Yes you read that correctly – Keneally is claiming that the structural integrity of modern buildings – the part that prevents them from collapsing – rests on “exterior metal beams”.
If you knew that a building was supported by its “exterior” beams you wouldn’t even dare go inside. The building would never even be approved for construction in the first place.
According to Keneally, the footage shows “how there is legitimacy to the explanation provided by the government’s 9/11 Commission investigation,” which is a strange argument to make considering the fact that the 9/11 Commission didn’t even investigate the collapse of WTC 7.
In accusing “conspiracy theorists” of inventing “wild claims” to substantiate their explanations, Keneally has dreamt up the wildest claim yet – that the structural integrity of modern buildings rests on their exterior beams and window frames.
One wonders how such a ham-fisted and inadequate story, which comes across like it was written by a child for a school essay, can make it past the editorial board and into the pages of a major national newspaper.
As we have documented, WTC 7 was a structurally reinforced building that was designed to have floors removed without collapsing.
In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7, NIST claimed that the never before observed “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that simply ignores eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that points to the deliberate demolition of the structure.
NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building’s collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.
If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?
NIST claims that the collapse of Building 7 is “The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building”.
We are actually being asked to believe the impossible – that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate.
The issue of molten metal, which was discovered under both the twin towers and WTC 7, suggesting an extremely hot burning agent was used in the demolition process, is completely ignored in NIST’s report, despite it being acknowledged in Appendix C of FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, which stated:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel… The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified
Speaking during a press conference that was called to counter NIST, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, dismissed the report.
“Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack,” said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused.”
The core of NIST’s explanation, that an “extraordinary event” called “thermal expansion” was to blame for the sudden total collapse of the building is of course on the face of it a fraud when one considers the innumerable number of buildings that have suffered roaring fires across the majority of their floors and remained standing, whereas WTC 7 suffered limited fire damage across less than a quarter of its total floor space.
NIST also claims that the building only fell at 40% free fall speed, as if this isn’t suspicious in itself. Remember that this 47-story behemoth took just 7 seconds to completely collapse within its own footprint falling through the path of most resistance.