Architects and Engineers Solving the Mystery of Building 7 - w Ed Asner

Throughout the ages, architects and engineers have designed and built the great structures, that have made our world and withstood the test of time. I'm Ed Asner, welcome to Architects & Engineers. Let's look now at modern steel frame buildings. This is the Empire State Building, a marvel of modern architecture.

It was built to last. Architects and engineers of today use computers to design and engineer buildings, that will endure the forces of nature, such as earthquakes, fires and hurricanes. This modern skyscraper was also built to last. We've seen buildings completely
destroyed like this before, but only when done intentionally.

Danny Jowenko is the expert on this in Europe. What did he say? Let's compare: Explosives are used to demolish
buildings like this in just seconds. OK, so it's a controlled demolition.
What's the problem with that? Well, it happened on the afternoon of 9/11 at the World Trade Center. Let's just think about this,
controlled demolitions cannot be engineered and rigged in a day.

It takes months, and therefore, this event
must have been planned in advance. And these people heard explosions. He takes his hand off and you hear, three, two, one, and it was: boom, boom, boom, boom. And these reporters recognized
it as a controlled demolition.

And I turned in time to see
what looked like a skyscraper implosion, looked like it has been done by a demolition crew.
The whole thing just collapsing down. For the third time today, it's reminiscent
of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, when a building was deliberately destroyed
by well placed dynamite to knock it down. It was almost as if it were planned implosion,
it just pancaked. So what's the problem
if this was a planned demolition? Well, we are told by government agencies
that this building came down as a result of normal office fires.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology
produced their final report in 2008. WTC 7 collapsed because of fires
fueled by office furnishings, it did not collapse from explosives
or from fuel oil fires. But what do you think brought down the building? What caught my eyes is [that] more than
thirteen hundred architects and engineers examined the evidence
about Building 7's collapse... And disagree with the official report,
issued by the National Institute
of Standards and Technology.

I'm certainly much more
open minded about it than I was... And it is because of the involvement
of the 9/11 families
and all these engineers and architects. You are about to hear from architect of 23 years,
Richard Gage, AIA, member of the American Institute of Architects... And founder of
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Now there are more than
1500 architects and engineers who say that it could not have been
brought down by office fires. They are backed by 9/11 family members, who are calling for an independent
unbiased investigation. I'm Richard Gage. Fires have never before caused
the collapse of any skyscraper.

Even though there are numerous examples
of much hotter, larger... And longer lasting fires in these buildings. And in the case of building 7, the fire that NIST said started the collapse, had actually burned out over an hour before. It could not have caused
the collapse as NIST claims.

Yet, this 47 story modern steel frame skyscraper, which was not hit by an airplane, collapses mostly into its own footprint
like a house of cards, as fast as a bowling ball falling off
the side of the building... In just under 7 seconds. Listen to the experts. Building number 7 descended in free fall
for the first 100 feet, which means that there was absolutely
no resistance to that descent whatsoever.

NIST has admitted,
it went into free fall for 8 stories and going from motionless to free fall, instantly, that's a bothersome part of the puzzle,
because NIST never explained it. We've got a building that came down
on its own foot print, so all of the columns really needed
to be severed at the same time, in order for that structure
to fall the way that we saw. The symmetry is the smoking gun. The whole building completely comes down
in one continuous motion, there couldn't have been
any structural resistance.

According to NIST, the failure occurred
at column 79 on level 12. They're talking about a single
columnar collapse or failure that resulted in the total collapse
of the building. It is possible that you could have a local failure
as a result of a connection failing, but the likelihood of that failure
dragging the entire building in such a fashion that all the columns would fail
at the same time, is an impossibility. Impossibility? Yes.

What I saw, it was a classic implosion. The center of the core,
the penthouse area starts to move first... And then the building falls along with it. I'd like to know why NIST excluded
the document from FEMA in the appendix C, that documented the evidence of melting steel.

Why is this forensic evidence
not been included in the report? In an office fire, you cannot generate
enough heat to melt steel and yet we have evidence of molten iron. RJ Lee Company, USGS and Dr. Steven Jones's work, all three separately found these microspheres. In the dust, we found what we characterize as...

Unreactive thermitic material, in the shape of some very tiny red-grey chips, which have different properties. And in the reaction they produce molten iron, which is the prime indication
of a thermitic reaction and such a reaction can be used
to destroy steel structures. What we've found is a modern version of thermite, which we call nanothermite. There were these iron microspheres present
in all of the dust samples, that needed to have been formed
in extremely high temperatures.

I've independently seen thermitic activity within two separate independent samples of WTC dust. My contention, based on finding
thermite residue in the dust, is that it happened before, it did not happen after, in the fires that ensued
in the rubble pile afterwards. All of the characteristics of the microspheres
tell me that thermite was involved in melting those steel beams. So thermite, if it was present at the WTC
and created this molten metal, that so many witnesses
and photographic evidence shows, will also explain the fact that the fires
could not be put out at ground zero.

The only thing that is consistent
with all of the evidences that we have, that could cause such a thing is the use of thermate to cut through the steel. You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry,
like lava from a volcano. Well the manual gets in to thermite
and if it says if you have melted steel on concrete, which we had on 9/11, we should test for it. This is fused element of steel,
molten steel and concrete and all of these things all fused
by the heat into one single element.

We're asking for an investigation
that follows National Standards. There is no excuse to not test for this. If terrorists used explosives in 1993,
why we didn't test for them? If all those witnesses heard explosions,
why aren't we testing for them? NIST concedes that they found
no evidence for explosives. So then we ask them: "Well, did you look?" And they said: "No, we did not look
for explosives or residues of explosives".

So the pre-conceived notion of NIST
is that there is no evidence for explosives and so there is no point in looking. That is the most unscientific thing
that you can possibly think of. Not to look because
you don't expect to find evidence, and in fact the evidence is overwhelming. They state these conclusions,
for which there is virtually no evidence and then they ignore conclusions
that could be drawn from the evidence.

The Freedom of Information Act request
to NIST was denied. But they claim that releasing the statement
might jeopardize public safety. How could it possibly jeopardize public safety? The destruction of evidence
was a criminal act in itself. It was already been carted away and destroyed when the FEMA investigators got there, about a month after September 11th.

You can't do science
when you are deprived of the evidence and when your hypothesis is the least valid
instead of the most likely. When the most likely hypothesis,
in the case of Building 7, wasn't even mentioned. This is not science. The scientific forensic evidence ignored by NIST, but carefully reviewed by teams
of technical professionals, corroborates the hypothesis
of explosive controlled demolition.

We travelled to 21 foreign countries
and 32 American cities, bringing this evidence
to the attention of the public. And we're backed by 9/11 family members
and other concerned citizens, who are calling for an independent,
unbiased investigation. I'm a family member trying to find out the answers to the murder of 3000+ people. The bottom line is that it needs
to be investigated, properly.

Please, look at architects and engineers,
people all around the world, scientists, all around the world are questioning this... And there's some deep, deep explaining to do. It took some kind of consciousness
raising on my part before I was willing to look at the possibilities. And really, you need to go
where the evidence leads.

As an engineer, I have 3 degrees in engineering, I signed that petition for Architects
and Engineers for 9/11 Truth some time ago, because the American people
absolutely need the truth of 9/11. Look at the evidence,
in fact I'll say this very categorically. Any reasonable person who looks at the evidence, that has been brought forward, has got to come away with the feeling
that something has to be done a real investigation has to be put forward. We will never heal, this country will never, ever, ever forget that day.

We have to demand a new investigation. I want justice here. The country owns this, we were all victims. You all should want answers, it's not just ours, not just mine,
we all lost something that day.

It's distressing for everyone
to come to terms with this evidence. But we must pursue the truth, wherever it leads. Look at the evidence and decide for yourself..