Home | Index & Archives | Contributing Writers | Writers Wanted | Whistleblowers | Muckraker Report T-Shirts | Corporate News Feeds | News Sources / Links | Contacts
Muckraker Report
No Chance of Truth in WTC-7 Investigation

No Chance of Truth in WTC-7 Investigation


April 19, 2006 – According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, on March 31, 2006, under solicitation number SB1341-06-Q-0186, a fixed price purchase order has been awarded by the federal government to Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) of Albuquerque, New Mexico to research and provide World Trade Center Building Seven structural analysis and collapse hypotheses.[1]  Specifically, the U.S. government has contracted with ARA to:


Create detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations) in World Trade Center Building Seven. 


Because the federal government has hired ARA to conduct this research, there is no chance whatsoever of truth in the WTC-7 collapse investigation.


When asked by the Muckraker Report on March 20, 2006 if the federal government would be forthcoming if investigation conclusions regarding the collapse of World Trade Center Building Seven indicated that it collapsed at freefall speed onto its footprint as the direct result of a controlled demolition, Michael E. Newman, Public and Business Affairs spokesman for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) said, “If that is the conclusion reached, that’s what we will release to the public.”  When asked if the government’s previous conclusions reached to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC-1, WTC-2) prohibited a “controlled demolition” conclusion regarding WTC-7, Newman said, “They do not.” 


For those of you new to the 9/11 Truth Movement, a movement that by most accounts originated with Mr. Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com, and has expanded to organizations such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Physics 911 with millions of other Americans now convinced that there is a government cover-up pertaining to the actual events of September 11, 2001, the collapse of World Trade Center Building Seven will prove to be the government’s weakest link in its official account of how 9/11 unfolded.  This viewpoint is shared by millions of people and demonstrated by the fact that as of today, the U.S government has yet to provide an official, public explanation of how WTC-7, a forty-seven story steel superstructure that was not struck by an airplane, was the furthest distance from the Twin Towers, experienced minimal debris damage when the towers collapsed, and only had miniscule office fires burning in it between the 6th and 12th floors, suddenly collapsed at freefall speed onto its footprint at 5:20p.m. EST on September 11, 2001.  The reason why the government has not yet released an official account of how WTC-7 collapsed is because there is no plausible explanation other than controlled demolition. 


Unfortunately for patriotic Americans that are devoted to the truth, the federal government cannot and will not ever admit that WTC-7 collapsed as the direct result of a controlled demolition because if the government did make such an admission, then it would have to explain how and when the building was wired for demolition.  Answering that question would create the opportunity for the people who still, for the most part, believe the mainstream media and government, to recall, reconsider, and reconcile the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers absolutely looked like controlled demolitions also.  The government would not be able to prevent the people from appropriately considering that if WTC-7 collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition, then maybe the Twin Towers were wired for demolition too!  This is the government conspirators’ greatest fear for virtually every policy, law, and action since September 11, 2001 has been based on the American public believing the government’s account of what happen in New York, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania on 9/11. 


It must be emphasized that the 9/11 Commission failed to mention the collapse of WTC-7 in its 9/11 Commission Report.  Not one word about WTC-7 is found in the government’s first official account of 9/11.  What followed the 9/11 Commission Report was the research conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).  It should be noted that NIST was directed to provide a report that explained how, from a structural perspective, WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 collapsed.  The research and findings on how all three of these buildings collapsed was to be in a single report.  NIST started its investigation in August 2002.  However, when the draft of its final report came out in December 2004, WTC-7 was not in it.  According to NIST, it was decided to research WTC-7 separately.  Why?  The reason why NIST is delaying a public account of WTC-7 is because it cannot explain WTC-7 in any fashion that will be taken seriously by any inquisitive and logically thinking person. 


Eventually NIST will release a final draft on the collapse of WTC-7 that will defy all logic and laws of physics.  It can only be assumed that the delay is purposefully intended to protect the existing, however gravely weakened, official account of 9/11 from enduring further public scrutiny.  The government’s account of 9/11 is against the ropes gasping for air as the 9/11 Truth Movement is pummeling it with hard-hitting facts.  WTC-7 will be the knock out punch, and those in the federal government that are involved in the 9/11 cover-up know it, which might explain why NIST has hired an outside contractor to take the public heat when it finally can no longer delay the release of an official account of how WTC-7 collapsed. 


So who is this contractor, Applied Research Associates, Inc. and can this company be trusted to speak the truth, no matter what?  NIST reports that Dr. Steven W. Kirkpatrick, who is employed by Applied Research Associates, Inc., will be the Program Manager for the WTC-7 collapse analysis.  Can Dr. Kirkpatrick be objective in his research or is opinion already skewed?  It is highly unlikely that Kirkpatrick will contradict the government’s “pancake theory” of collapse for the Twin Towers by reporting the truth about WTC-7, which is that it obviously collapsed as the result of controlled demolition, because Kirkpatrick was a NIST Contractor through his employer, ARA, during the NIST investigation into the cause of collapse of WTC-1 and WTC-2.  With Kirkpatrick leading the team that will provide the research and findings for WTC-7, the integrity of the government’s investigation into how WTC-7 collapsed is already compromised. 


Beyond the fact that Kirkpatrick is a safe bet for the government and an obstacle to honest, unbiased analysis, NIST has taken further measures to assure that no rogue scientist emerges from the inside and starts talking about “controlled demolition” in regard to the collapse of WTC-7.  How did the government create this truth guard?  Contractually, of course, that’s how.  Note that the government has retained ARA to:


Create detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations) in World Trade Center Building Seven. 


Contractually, ARA is restrained to research likely modes of failure only for floors 8 to 46.  This is critical to the plan for the federal government to cover-up the controlled demolition that any footage of the collapse of WTC-7 clearly demonstrates because controlled demolition most often occurs in the basement and first few floors of a building, with gravity doing the rest of the work. 


In December 1996 PBS science show, NOVA conducted an interview with Stacey Loizeaux, who is the daughter of Mark Loizeaux, and niece of Doug Loizeaux – president and vice-president of Controlled Demolition Inc.  Incidentally, Controlled Demolition Inc. was the company hired by the federal government to remove all debris from the World Trade Center Complex after 9/11.  The purpose of the NOVA interview[2] was to provide the audience with information about controlled demolitions.  Here is an excerpt from the NOVA interview, which validates that the government is not at all interested in a controlled demolition conclusion regarding the collapse of WTC-7.


NOVA:  I understand that you try to use the smallest amount of explosives possible.


Loizeaux:  Right.


NOVA: Can you explain why?


Loizeaux:  Well, explosives are really the catalyst.  Largely what we use is gravity.  And we’re dealing with Class A explosives that are embedded into concrete – and that concrete flies.  So, let’s say your explosive is 17,000 feet per second – you’ve got a piece of concrete moving at that speed when you remove it from the structure.  So we try to use the minimal amount to keep down the fly of debris for a safe operation.  Other than that, it comes down to cost effectiveness.  You know, the more holes you have to drill, it’s more labor, more time, and it’s more expensive.  So obviously, the smallest amount of work is best. 


NOVA: Can you describe the prep work that goes into dropping a building?


Loizeaux:  Well, it depends on the structure, obviously.  We’ve had chimneys prepared in half a day and we’ve had buildings that take three months.  Generally we don’t do the prep work.  We are usually an implosion subcontractor, meaning that there is a main demolition contractor on site, who’s been contracted by the property owner or the developer, and they then subcontract the implosion to us.  We will then ask them to perform preparatory operations, including non-load bearing partition removal – meaning the dry wall that separates the rooms.  It’s not carrying the weight of the building.  It’s just there as a divider.  But what happens – you know, if you have a case of beer – all the little cardboard reinforcements inside?  If you have all those little cardboard reinforcements, then you can jump up and down on the case.  But if you take them out, the case will crush under your weight.  Those little partitions actually add up and act as stiffeners.  So that’s one of the first things we strip out.  The second thing we do is drilling.  Depending on the height of the structure, we’ll work on a couple different floors – usually anywhere from two to six.  The taller the building the higher we work.  We only really need to work on the first two floors, because you can make the building come down that way.  But we work on several upper floors to help fragment debris for the contractor, so all the debris ends up in small, manageable pieces…


Repeating what Loizeaux said, “We only really need to work on the first two floors, because you can make the building come down that way.”  So why isn’t ARA being asked by the government to conduct analysis of the entire WTC-7 structure from the basement level to the top floor?  It’s called cover-up and criminal conspiracy, if not mass murder. 


Americans simply cannot allow the government to get away with this great deception and criminal conspiracy.  If the government cannot be trusted, then it is time to rise up and abolish the existing government, and institute a new government, a constitutional republic, in these United States once again.  Then, and only then, will the truth prevail and set us free. 

[1] National Institute of Standards and Technology, Contracts, WTC-7 Structural Analysis and Collapse Hypotheses, March 31, 2006, http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0186.htm, [Accessed April 17, 2006]

[2] PBS, NOVA, Interview with Stacey Loizeaux, December 1996, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html, [Accessed April 17, 2006] 

Freelance writer / author, Ed Haas, is the editor and columnist for the Muckraker Report.  Get smart.  Read the Muckraker Report.  [http://teamliberty.net]  To learn more about Ed’s current and previous work, visit Crafting Prose.  [http://craftingprose.com]   

If you enjoyed this article, please consider donating $1 or more to the MUCKRAKER REPORT.
Your donations keep the Muckraker Report subscription free!


 Subscribe to Muckraker Report RSS Feed

Copyright 2002-2007 by MUCKRAKER REPORT.
All rights reserved.
For re-print permission, contact Ed Haas: (843) 817-9962.