“Chronicle of a Collapse Foretold: The Paradox of World Trade Center 7 and the 9/11 Narrative”

Kristen Gasparini urges all to apply logic and common sense to wake up the sleeping global population — Reprint from Covert Action Magazine

Lend an ear to Kristen Gasparini as she shares a new perspective on the WTC 7 controversy and how to use it overcome the powers that shouldn’t be. The article originally appeared in Covert Action Magazine. She has also prepared a treatise on her well thought out plan for massive change.

As we near the 25^th anniversary of 9/11, the time is right for soberly re-examining the official narrative of the event that defines our century, not by getting lost in a maze of speculations, but by paying attention to a paradox that can be analyzed with logic and common sense: that of World Trade Center Building 7, and the government report on how it fell.

World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) was a 47-story, steel-framed skyscraper which, in less than seven seconds, collapsed symmetrically, pulverizing into its own footprint at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. It stood between Vesey and Barclay Streets, 370 feet north of WTC1, the second Twin Tower that fell. WTC7 was not hit by an airplane. Its collapse, although stranger, received dramatically less media coverage than the Twin Towers in the days following 9/11, so much so that a majority of U.S. citizens are unaware that a third building fell on that day.

Another reason for this may be that WTC7 is not remotely mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report ,^[1] the official account of the events of 9/11. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)—a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce—was given the task of investigating the WTC7 collapse in a separate report, which was heavily criticized from the beginning. The reason why the debate has not reached the wider public is due to an illegitimate dynamic of discrediting and media silencing of NIST’s critics.

The paradox is this: NIST’s study concludes that WTC7 collapsed only due to office fires, describing it as the first steel-framed high-rise ever to do so. Yet its destruction was announced by news networks before it occurred, anticipated by first responders, and preceded by explosions felt and heard by witnesses. An event declared entirely unprecedented in the physics of skyscrapers was—somehow—expected in advance.

Analyzing this concerning contradiction could—and should—lead us all to evaluate how long we are willing to sustain a cognitive dissonance around our history that, frankly, is increasingly unbearable.

A Fraudulent Report

“We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building 7.”^[2]

Five years into the 9/11 tragedy, lead investigator Shyam Sunder and his team of NIST analysts were still in the thick of trying to understand how—exactly—Building 7 had fallen.

They announced their investigation (which was supposed to take 24 months) on August 21, 2002. Its purpose was to determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” It was not until 2008—six years later—that they would finally deliver the Draft for Public Comment noting their findings.

Why did it take so much longer than they had estimated? Because, perhaps, they were confusingly stubborn about pursuing the bizarre “fire only” hypothesis, despite evidence which should have inspired a very different starting point. The draft was published on August 21, 2008, two days after the sudden death of Barry Jennings^[3]—whose testimony might have eased Sunder’s trials and tribulations.

Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the NYC Housing Authority, was trapped in WTC7 for about 90 minutes, after an explosion blew out the staircase. This detonation, according to Jennings,^[4] occurred before either of the Twin Towers fell, and was followed by several more. Jennings was rescued by firefighters and escorted out through the main lobby which, he recalls, was destroyed beyond recognition.

Inexplicably, there was no mention of Barry Jennings in NIST’s final report, published on November 20, 2008.^[5]

NIST’s ultimate explanation? In simple terms, the study concluded that fires inside WTC7—ignited by debris falling from the North Tower—burned so hot that they caused the internal metal structure to expand out of place, leaving unsupported floors to crumble through each other. According to NIST, what one sees in the abundant raw footage of WTC7 is no more than the shell of a void structure collapsing after its interior.^[6]

Independent investigators immediately took issue with the final report, highlighting NIST’s scientific malpractice.

• NIST’s claims about the location and duration of the fires that supposedly caused the onset of the internal collapse are wrong, and there is photographic evidence to prove this claim.^[7]

• Structural drawings were missing from the report. Following an FOIA request, NIST showed the drawings, but the ones relevant to the area critical to collapse initiation were not the original “as built” ones. These drawings were made by NIST, and omitted shear studs, an essential structural feature that would have made the explanation of the onset of collapse impossible, or at least extremely unlikely.^[8]
• According to a thorough study done at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), the computer model NIST made to simulate the collapse does not match video recordings.^[9] The input data for the model was not released, so that the model could not be independently peer-reviewed. The FOIA request for access to said data was denied, on the grounds that making it public would jeopardize public safety.^[10] The logic behind not releasing data for a building that no longer exists, and behind the supposed safety in not giving scientists information to prevent future disasters, is hard to grasp.

• NIST claims that no steel from WTC7 was recovered from the collapse site, so that metallographic analyses could not be undertaken to determine whether explosives were involved. However, there is abundant photographic evidence of NIST investigators handling deformed steel that looks like Swiss cheese. Material engineering experts say that this indicates the steel underwent temperatures that were much higher than the ones that office fires produce.^[11]

The Most Likely Explanation

These and several more counter-arguments to NIST’s account were brought forth by a group comprised today of more than 3,600 licensed, independent architects and engineers (Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth^[12]), who have been asking for a new investigation since 2006. These professionals argue that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, and that the mathematical, physical and circumstantial evidence they have compiled confirms their claim, which was always the scientifically most probable.

At the beginning, for example, NIST claimed that WTC7 did not collapse at free fall. In August 2008, Sunder claimed that free-fall collapse would have been impossible with any structural components present below the top of the building^[13] (NIST has removed the conference video from its website). David Chandler and Steven Jones forced NIST to repeat the analysis and admit that, for at least 2.25 seconds, WTC7 came down at gravity acceleration.

After conceding free fall in November of 2008,^[14] however, Sunder continued to deny the presence of explosives (despite never testing for residues^[15]), contradicting his own original statement, but providing no explanation.

Free fall is only possible if entire floors disappear simultaneously and homogeneously, which is achievable with the aid of detonations or incendiaries that remove the structural steel all at once.^[16] This would be consistent with the metallurgical evidence NIST photographed but did not include in its report, would account for the numerous testimonies of explosions^[17]—also excluded from reports—and would explain the traces of incendiary material found in the dust of the WTC collapses.^[18]

Despite the sheer amount of evidence against NIST, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have not yet been able to bring their findings to a majority of U.S. citizens because they are almost always referred to by mainstream media and academia as “conspiracy theorists.”^[19] This is a term—long promoted by the CIA to ostracize dissenters—that has effectively become an ad-hominem attack, and functions to dismiss any claims on the basis of the presupposed irrationality of a speaker, hindering anyone’s credibility a priori.^[20]

What is in fact irrational is accepting this designation at face value: The debate involves approximately 200 people employed by the U.S. government—an entity whose role was not neutral with respect to 9/11—versus more than 3,600 professionals who are not only independent of government, but have nothing to gain from challenging NIST’s authority. If anything, such a choice comes with considerable social and professional backlash, and should signal bravery and genuine concern to anyone lucidly evaluating their motives.

Beyond the strictly scientific debate, however, the onus is on NIST to explain something infinitely more straightforward.

The BBC^[21] and CNN^[22] announced the fall of Building 7 20 and 70 minutes, respectively before it happened. Firefighters and policemen repeatedly warned of its imminent collapse.^[23] Ashleigh Banfield, then of MSNBC, reported on the ground that afternoon: “That building right there, the brown building, the tall one—is number 7 World Trade Center. We’ve heard several reports, from several different officers now, that that is the building that is going to go down next.”

If, as NIST affirms, no other [steel-framed fire-protected highrise] building on the planet had ever collapsed due to fire (and numerous buildings worldwide burned for much longer than WTC7^[24]), how could anyone possibly know Building 7 was going to go down next?

Broader Implications

If one excludes that NIST’s mistakes and omissions were in good faith, then the deceptiveness of the report was deliberate. We have seen this with government commissions before (ie. Owens Commission regarding Pearl Harbor and 1964 Warren Commission report regarding the JFK assassination).

What would be the effect of widespread knowledge about the controlled demolition of WTC-7 on 9/11? The official 9/11 narrative would start to unravel.

To make the reasoning explicit, it is important to know that a successful controlled demolition takes several months to prepare.^[25] This means that, prior to 9/11, someone was repeatedly entering Building 7, introducing incendiaries and arranging them to obtain a symmetric collapse.

This contradicts the narrative that only external enemies organized the attacks, unless the Islamic terrorists and/or associates were repeatedly able to penetrate Building 7, planting explosives without being noticed. If so, however, NIST would have used and produced accurate data for criminal investigators to swiftly discover the culprits. What is more logical, and likely, is that the entities responsible for the collapse of WTC7 also had the power to coopt an entire government agency to fabricate a deceptive explanation.

Among financial and insurance institutions, Building 7 hosted the offices of the IRS, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the U.S. Secret Service.^[26] Immense amounts of data, pertaining to the Enron scandal, the WorldCom scandal, the hot IPO allocations during the dot-com bubble, and other fraud cases and federal investigations, were irretrievably lost in the collapse.^[27]

One of the immediate effects of 9/11 was the collective oblivion of the 2.3 trillion taxpayer dollars that the Department of Defense could not properly account for between 1990 and 2001, and that has since ballooned to over 21 trillion.^[28] This money does not go toward healthcare, infrastructure, or education, but towards covert operations and the forever wars that 9/11 continues justifying.

Another was the execution of the USA PATRIOT Act,^[29] an unconstitutional protocol of mass surveillance.

Among the lasting effects of 9/11 is the ongoing slaughter of millions in faraway lands, in the name of democracy and counterterrorism.

Old World Trade Center 7 no longer stands, but the paradox of U.S. citizens’ acceptance of a bleak state of affairs—justified by a warped history—certainly does. And goodness knows how much revisionism it will take to demolish it.

Do you want to know what the solution is?

See Kristen’s well though-out plan on her Substack:

HACKING THE PROPAGANDA SYSTEM, UNITING, AND CONQUERING POWER ABUSE

Are you worried about global, rampant power abuse? Do you feel restless knowing that so many people share this concern, but remain seemingly powerless? Are you frustrated at the growing engineered societal division? Do you have an audience, or know someone who does and is ready to take effective action? Thank you. Please share and comment on this propos…

Read more

Kristen Gasparini graduated in Philosophy from Wellesley College in 2020, and is currently working on an initiative to go beyond artificial “divide and conquer” tactics which prevents the majority from coalescing against the consolidation of techno-totalitarian powers.

Italian and British-Jamaican, she is trilingual, a world traveler and a bridge builder.

Kristen can be reached at KristenElizabethGasparini@gmail.com.

1. The 9/11 Commission Report, July 22, 2004.
   URL: https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf ↑

2. Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter. “15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses,” Europhysics News, Vol. 47, No. 4, July-August 2016, p. 24. Published online August 24, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/epn/2016402 ↑
3. The NYCHA Employee Bulletin, October 2008, Vol. 4, No. 5, p. 2. Accessed May 26, 2019, through: David Slesinger, Jenningsmystery.com. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20090823191905/http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/emp_bulletin_oct_2008.pdf ↑
4. WTCClips, “Two Barry Jennings Interviews (WABC-TV, 2001 / LTW, 2007),” YouTube. Duration: 21.04 minutes. Published on 9/7/2014. URL:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/OmeY2vJ6ZoA?start=&rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

5. S. Shyam Sunder et al., “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A),” published November 20, 2008.
   URL: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.NCSTAR.1a ↑
6. Institute of Standards and Technology, “NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell,” YouTube. Duration: 3.39 minutes. Published on January 28, 2009. URL:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/PK_iBYSqEsc?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

7. Raul A. Angulo. “Did World Trade Center Building 7 really collapse due to an office fuel load fire?” International Fire & Safety Journal, Images 19, 23 and 24. Published October 15, 2024, at 2:29 p.m.
   URL: https://internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com/did-world-trade-center-building-7-really-collapse-due-to-an-office-fuel-load-fire/ ↑
8. Chris Sarns, “Part 3: Missing Shear Studs,” ae911Truth.org. December 28, 2016. URL: https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-series/319-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-3 ↑
9. J. Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., Zhili Quan, Ph.D., Feng Xiao, Ph.D. “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 – Final Report,” p. 92, University of Alaska Fairbanks, March 2020. ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
   URL: https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf ↑
10. Catherine S. Fletcher to Ronald H. Brookman, partial denial of FOIA request. NIST, United States Department of Commerce. January 26, 2010.
    URL: http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf ↑
11. “Steel Sulfidation | World Trade Center Building 7,” ae911Truth.org. URL: https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/steel-sulfidation ↑
12. The AE911Truth Petition. URL: http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/#/AE/ ↑
13. Nate Flach. “NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, 8/26/2008,” Minute: 1:01:55 — Vimeo. Duration: 2:30:19 hours, published in 2010. URL:

14. Sunder et al., “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” p. 44-46. ↑
15. “FAQs — NIST WTC Towers Investigation,” NIST, September 19, 2011, #29:
    Q: Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?
    A: NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
    URL: https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation ↑
16. David Chandler, “NIST Finally Admits Free Fall — Parts 1,” ae911Truth.org.
    URL: https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/video/7-nist-finally-admits-free-fall-part-1 ↑
17. One Ten Thousandth, “A Record of the Explosions Heard Before the Collapse of WTC 7,” filmed on September 11, 2001, YouTube. Duration: 12:09 minutes. Published on October 7, 2017. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20191005205057/

18. Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley and Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 (2009), pp. 7–31.
    URL: https://benthamopenarchives.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf ↑
19. David A. Hughes, “9/11 Truth and the Silence of the IR Discipline,” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 45, Issue 2, May 2020. First published online February 27, 2020.
    URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0304375419898334 ↑
20. Ginna Husting and Martin Orr, “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Spring 2007). pp. 127-50. See, in particular, pp. 133 and 144. ↑
21. PeaceGardenSecrets, “BBC Reports 911, WTC 7 Collapse BEFORE it Happens,” filmed on September 11, 2001, YouTube. Duration: 3:32 minutes. Published on June 4, 2013. URL:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/677i43QfYpQ?start=&rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/677i43QfYpQ?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

23. See 17, minute 7:00. ↑
24. See 8. Image 3. ↑
25. AE911Truth. “Stand for the Truth: A Government Researcher Speaks Out | 9/11 Evidence and NIST,” minute 20:17. YouTube. Duration: 31:32 minutes. Published on March 13, 2017. URL:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/GvAv-114bwM?start=&rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

26. Ramon Gilsanz, Edward M. DePaola, Christopher Marrion and Harold “Bud” Nelson, “WTC7,” Ch. 5, Table 5.1. FEMA (May 2002): https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf ↑
27. “The Collapse of WTC7: ‘A Wholesale Loss of Documents,’” Whatreallyhappened.com
    URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20150225000952/https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_documents_lost.html ↑
28. Dave Lindorff. “Exclusive: The Pentagon’s Massive Accounting Fraud Exposed,” The Nation, November 27, 2018.
    URL: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/pentagon-audit-budget-fraud/ ↑
29. “Surveillance Under the [USA] PATRIOT Act,” ACLU. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20210330024122/https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/surveillance-under-patriot-act