WTC 7 - the case for no classic progressive collapse but free fall -
Debunking the NIST 'thermal Expansion' Conspiracy Theory and identifying some US terrorists
by Anders Björkman


About us


Contact info


Order books




The US National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, at Washington, DC, has 2008 explained the complete destruction of skyscraper World Trade Centre 7 on 911 as a result of a single structural failure due to thermal expansion (due to a fire) initiating a 'classic progressive collapse' destroying the complete building.

There exists in structural damage analysis theory no such phenomenon: a 'classic progressive collapse' .

It is just a stupid invention, a fantasy, by non-regulatory, terrorist agency like NIST in support of terrorism. You should wonder why the NIST staff - covered persons - is not in jail.


(a) IN GENERAL.- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) COVERED PERSONS. - A covered person under this section is any person as follows: 

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 


WTC1 and WTC2 destroyed first

As reported by the New York Times, NYT, on 9/12/2001:

It is suggested that jet planes hijacked by some young Arabs destroyed the NY WTC 1 and 2 twin towers September 11, 2001!

Can actually hijacked jet planes making small holes in the weak tops of towers, destroy or cause destruction of the complete, much stronger undamaged towers below?

Or was the NYT publishing a lie?

More faked photos were published by the NYT Staff ... and they got a prize!

Or was it pre-fabricated, staged events and simple PROPAGANDA? Just watch!

Note the reporter with the suit and nicely combed blonde hair in this propaganda video that just happened to be in perfect camera view when BOTH tower collapse sequences were shot by his video camera man.

The video is a pre-recorded fake for the following reason:

According basic structural damage analysis no structure of any type can destroy itself by its upper weak part dropping on the stronger bottom part keeping it up but it happened twice in above propaganda video.

The impossibility is also explained at 1.18.50 in DVD2 - a film about the 911 incident. Why did the NYT suggest the contrary? Watching faked animations of WTC getting destroyed 'live on TV'? It is very easy to fake a plane crashing into a skyscraper! Like this! It is just a question of various layers on a video!  And to add some scripted comments! It is like composing music. But when a plane collides with a skyscraper there should be plenty of damaged plane parts bouncing off the skyscraper ... but there were none!

There were none!

Here is a plane colliding with WTC2 ... and no parts drop or bounce off outside. In five different ways shown live on TV! Poor animations! Of course there are many web sites explaining that it is perfectly normal that weak tops of steel structures can crush the much stronger bottom parts by gravity. Such web sites are simply made by terrorists! Supported by the New York Times staff!

Anyway the US reaction was rapid. As no Afghans or Iraqis were among the hijackers US militarily attacked Afghanistan and Iraq killing millions in reprisal and plenty people made a lot of money. And the real cause why the towers were destroyed is still not explained.

BBC reported something else and subscribers got angry.



WTC7 destroyed afterwards

And why didn't NYT report that a third tower, WTC7, was also destroyed with no Arab hijacked jet involved?

Below message has been sent on Saturday, February 15, 2014 at 22:06:04 to:

Thomas Farriello, Acting Commissioner, Department of Buildings, NYC, USA

Topic: Other

Message: See for info. Pls confirm you have understood what I write.

M/M: Mr.

First Name: Anders

Last Name: Björkman

Title: President

Company: Heiwa Co

Street Address: 6 rue Victor Hugo

City: Beausoleil

State: -

Postal Code: F06240

Country: France

Home Phone: 0033493784590

Business Phone: 0033661725424

Email Address:

Following has been received from Thomas Farriello, Acting Commissioner, Department of Buildings, NYC:


Thank you for contacting the City of New York. Your message has been forwarded to the appropriate agency for review and handling.

For future reference, your service request number is 1-1-939091973.


When Thomas Farriello, Acting Commissioner, Department of Buildings, NYC, replies with more details, this page will be updated.

10 October, 2015, no reply has been received. So I have sent a reminder today and await developments.

15 November, 2015, no reply has been received.

9 July, 2016, no reply has been received.

WTC7 was a very simple structure consisting of 24 vertical inner, load carrying pillar/column elements #58-81 and 26 (major) vertical outer, load carrying pillar/column elements (and some others for cosmetic purposes). The pillars/columns were connected by horizontal beam elements at 47 floor levels. The external wall elements were hanging on the beams between the outer pillars/columns and didn't carry any loads. The floor panels were resting on the beams. The loads on the floors were thus carried to the beams and via the horizontal beams to the vertical pillars down to ground. The vertical pillars thus carry all the loads in the structure down to ground. The ground floor pillars are thus 47 times stronger than the top floor pillars. The beams at every floor provide lateral support of the pillars.

Such a simple structure has plenty redundancy, i.e. you can remove an internal or external pillar/column anywhere between two, three or even four, etc, floors and the loads in the floors will just be carried to adjacent pillars/columns down to ground.

To suggest that the buckling of one pillar/column between two or more floors will initiate failures of pillar upwards, sideways and downwards leading to global collapse of the complete structure is ... ridiculous!

On Internet you find plenty footage videos/photos, e.g. this (fake) video, of the complete, intact, horizontal top part/roof of WTC7, not hit by any plane, suddenly dropping down behind intact buildings. How could it happen?

The perfectly symmetrical and total collapse of three commercial high rise office buildings on 11 September 2001, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 can only be explained as controlled demolitions, requiring a considerable amount of advance planning, preparation, expertise and access. But it is not described below. Below is what not happened.

Remove column #79 below floor 12 and nothing happens except column #79 above floor 12 displaces down a little. The load in column #79 above floor 12 is transmitted to adjacent columns via the girders and beams attached = redundancy

According NIST Final report of the WTC7 collapse (20 November 2008) pp 47-48:

"The probable collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC7 was initiated by the buckling of column #79 … The buckling of column #79 led to a vertical (?) progression of floor failures up to the east penthouse and to the buckling of columns #80 and #81. An east to west horizontal progression of interior column buckling followed due to (A) loss of lateral support to adjacent columns, (B) forces exerted by falling debris, and (C) load redistribution from other buckled columns. … Global collapse occurred as the entire building above the buckled region moved downward as a single unit."

Similar and more precise suggestions are given on page 90:

"WTC7 was prone to classic progressive collapse (sic!) in the absence of debris impact and fire-induced damage when a section of column #79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed. The collapse sequence demonstrated a vertical and horizontal progression of failure upon removal of the column #79 section, followed by buckling of exterior columns, which led to the collapse of the entire building."

As an non-regulatory (criminal, terrorist!) agency NIST can of course invent anything, e.g.

"a vertical (?) progression of floor failures" up to the roof took place or

"an east to west horizontal progression of interior column buckling" followed.

But why wood 30 intact floors suddenly fail? The floors do not support the structure. They just carry load to the beams. Or did all the beams fail. Each interior pillar is laterally supported by four beams/girders. Did all four beams/girders disconnect allowing that 23 intact interior pillars suddenly buckled?

No, it is not possible.

But according NIST it was the first time in history, that fire caused the sudden and complete collapse of a large, fire-protected, steel-framed building on 9/11, when one structural member initially failed.

Fact remains that no structure or building can ever globally collapse due to local failure of one element - a pillar - or connection - beams/girders - inside the structure (e.g. due to thermal expansion).

It is easy to show! Just remove the critical member or connection in any FEM/beam model of the structure! There is no collapse! Only adjacent structural members are higher stressed. Redundancy! Only terrorists think buildings collapse when one member fails.

There exists in structural damage analysis theory no phenomenon as 'classic progressive collapse'! It is just a stupid invention by non-regulatory, terrorist agency like NIST, as follows: 

"Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of local damage (? - failure!) from a single initiating event, from structural element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse (? - failure!) of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. The failure of WTC7 was an example of a fire-induced progressive collapse."

It is supposed to have happened for the first and only time in History on 911. But it is just a Great Deception!

The one major tenant of WTC 7 was Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied 37 of the 47 floors in WTC 7. A little discussed fact is that Rumsfeld was the chairman of the SSB advisory board and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had served as chairman of the SSB advisory board since its inception in 1999. According to the financial disclosures he made in his nomination process, during the same period Rumsfeld had also been a paid consultant to the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet. Rumsfeld and Cheney had to resign from their CIA and SSB positions in 2001 when they were confirmed as members of George W. Bush's cabinet.

Imagine that a US vice president and a US secretary of War had rented 75% of a building that suddenly just ... collapsed ... soon after they joined the government.

What kind of terrorism is that?

Redundancy always ensures that one local, structural failure will not destroy the complete or entire structure and all its elements/joints. That is the reason why nobody will ever win the 1M Anders Björkman Challenge 1!

NIST is evidently producing false definitions and reports in support of criminal, US terrorism!

NIST is part of the US terrorist network, I am sad to conclude. Below will be explained in detail how and why NIST produces a false report.

WTC7 was a very simple steel structure and not prone to any classic progressive collapse of any kind, whatever it means.

There were 24 inner columns/pillars #58-81 supported by 26 external wall columns as per simplified figure right.

The vertical columns/pillars were primary load carrying parts connected to ground. The columns were connected by horizontal beams at every floor providing lateral support. The beams were secondary parts carrying local floor loads to the primary parts - the vertical columns. The floor panels, tertiary parts, are then hanging on the beams, like the external wall panels. There were 47 floors. Total height of structure was 147 meters.

A more detailed animation of the structure can be seen here and a full description here! It is a VERY STRONG structure!

The four horizontal beams (secondary structure) carrying the floor panels transmit average about 200 tons (50 tons each) of weight to an inner column at every floor and 50 tons of weight to a wall column. You evidently have to adjust the actual load for different spans of beams, floor areas, unusual static loads, etc.

It means that the total load transmitted to the ground by each inner column is on average 9 400 tons. A wall column transmits one quarter that load to ground or 2 350 tons. Again the real values have to be adjusted for actual values of loads transmitted to the columns from the beams.

The columns have variable dimensions from ground to roof so that the compressive stress is always <30% yield at every floor level. Evidently the bottom columns are much stronger than the top ones. The bottom column/pillar is 47X stronger than the top column below the roof! Note that the inner columns/pillars carry abt. 81% of the total load in this simplified model.

The maximum combined stress in any horizontal beam is also <30% yield. The dimensions of the beams (adjusted for span) are similar everywhere as they only carry local loads. The floor panels are just thin structures carrying load to the beams. In figure right we see that an inner column is removed between floors 11 and 13 adjacent to two wall columns. It is similar to column #79 in WTC7.

The load carried by that inner column above floor 13 is, say, 6.800 tons and evidently the adjacent inner columns carry the same load - 6 800 tons. The adjacent wall columns carry one quarter that load - 1 700 tons.
The load - 6 800 tons - in the removed
inner column is then transmitted to adjacent columns - 1 700 tons to each adjacent inner column and the adjacent wall column via the horizontal beams above the removed part.

The result is as follows:

The load in an adjacent inner column increases from 6.800 to 8.500 tons and the load in an adjacent wall column increases from 1.700 tons to 3.400 tons or the local compressive stresses increase 25/50%. As the stresses in the adjacent columns were <30% yield before removal of the column, the stresses are now still only <37.5/45% yield, i.e. well below any critical value. In reality there are more wall columns than shown in this simplified model, which are interconnected, so the load is shared between them. The bending stresses in the horizontal beams above the removed column part will double, which is still <60% yield. It means that nothing will really happen to the complete structure except that named parts become a little more stressed.

There will be no vertical progression of failures due to removing one part of an inner column! To suggest, like NIST, that the whole structure collapses progressively is criminally absurd!

It can be noted that the load at ground of the inner columns carrying the extra load of the removed column increases from 9.400 to 11.100 tons or only 18%. Similar happens to the adjacent wall columns.

This effect, that you can remove an element or a part of a structure, e.g. a piece of column, without, e.g. collapse following is called redundancy; the structure functions without that part; the part was superfluous and not really needed. The real reason for redundancy is safety; one part may get damaged for any reason and evidently the whole structure shall not collapse, if you have to modify the structure for any reason; shift the location of a column, etc.

Removing a column 'X inside a structure will not produce 'global or progressive collapse' of the entire structure below and above! The load previously carried by the column will simply be transmitted to adjacent columns via the horizontal beam elements above the failed column and down to ground = redundancy! Horizontal elements just above the removed column will rotate/displace down but are retained by intact connections/elements.

None of the structural parts of the structure, columns and horizontal beams, will be subject to critical overload leading to any failure or buckling, when one part - a piece of column - is removed.

The NIST suggestion that

"the collapse sequence demonstrated a vertical and horizontal progression of failure upon removal of the column #79 section, followed by buckling of exterior columns, which led to the collapse of the entire building"

is simply not true. It is in fact ridiculous non-regulated criminal nonsense to suggest that columns and beams remote from a damaged/removed part of any structure will be critically affected at all. Only the stress in adjacent elements will increase. No failures or buckling will occur. 


Structural Analysis Software used cannot do the Damage Analysis

Remove column #79 below floor 12 and nothing happens except column #79 above floor 12 displaces down a little. The load in column #79 above floor 12 is transmitted to adjacent columns via the girders and beams attached = redundancy

Re the software used to conclude the above NIST refers to twosoft wares: LS-DYNA and ANSYS, and makes two models (one only of the bottom 16 floors, the latter of the complete structure) and copy/paste results (failures!) from the first (locally damaged) model floors 0-16 to the other. The soft wares used are just simple design software that can only do static analysis and cannot do structural damage analysis as suggested in the report with loose parts flying (?) around and alleged debris re-loading (?) the structure continuously.

What is real structural damage analysis to simulate a collapse (or for that matter, a high energy ship collision)?

It is 1000's of (static) analysises, where each phase of damages/failures development is analysed separately with the modified input of structural arrangements and loads applied due to damages of the previous stages. You evidently start with an intact plate/stiffener structure, then identify the first failure (a cracked plate?), then redo the analysis of the complete structure with that failure and modified loads to identify the second failure (a ruptured stiffener), etc. The purpose is to establish a path of failures through the structure. At each stage the energy consumed to produce the failure is calculated and is deducted from the energy available to drive the destruction. Released energy due to failures or still applied from outside is evidently added.

NIST might have tried to do just that, e.g. divided the structural 'collapse' into say 6500 of 1/1000 seconds intervals and run 6500 static models, each one representing the status of the structure during the alleged 6.5 seconds collapse with failed parts, modified load patterns, modified structure, etc, and uploaded and included it in the new model at every stage, but there is no indication that they did it. There are too much manual manipulations involved unless you have a clever software to do it ... which as far as this writer is informed NIST does not have as it does not exist!

This is confirmed by correspondence 14-15 January 2009 between Mr. Geoffrey Walter Ritchey and NIST:

I respectfully request copies of the following NIST records:

Instructions for running the NIST simulation of the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 on my own hardware including required software, required hardware, and any parameters to the program. ...

Geoffrey Walter Ritchey

I assume Mr. Ritchey simply wanted to see the intact, loaded model with no failures and then remove the famous pillar #79 below floor #12 to see what happened, i.e. nothing except that adjacent pillars were more stressed.

The response from UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, was simple:

NIST has no documents that are responsive to your request.

However, NIST had the documents and made them secret because later we are told the following:

Structural Analysis Input used for the Damage Analysis made secret!!


Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Centre Towers and World Trade Centre Building 7 on September 11, 2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information: 

1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities. 

2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


Patrick Gallagher Director National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dated: JUL 09 2009

(Note - the date should probably be JUL 09 2010 as Gallagher was not with NIST JUL 2009!)

As director of a non-regulated agency like NIST Patrick Gallagher can of course invent anything and produce whatever lies he likes. It would appear Patrick Gallagher supports terrorism!

So NIST has made secret the evidence for the following amazing damage analysis results - including analysis of a big free falling structure with no internal loads acting on it : 

The report includes figures 3.10-13 showing the right side with pillars/columns #79-81 collapse below floor 16 (?) at 0.5, 2.5 (shown above), 4.5 and 6.5 seconds, while the left side with pillars/columns #58-78 remains intact.


Apparently everything above pillars/columns #79-81 drops down due to vertical failures' progression - there are free-flying parts! But the remainder of the structure below floor 16 with pillars/columns #58-78 is just locally damaged during 6.5 seconds. Nothing drops down from below = there is no free debris there. You would then expect the upper, intact part to tilt to the right!

The horizontal failures' progression is not clear. What energy is required to produce all these failures? NIST does not provide any data.

Then there is the whole, intact, undamaged part above floor 16 - the upper intact part of WTC7 above floor 16. How to handle it?

Upper 31 Floors Part of WTC7 free fall drops for 2.25 Seconds

NIST has agreed/confirmed the finding that the complete upper part of WTC7, i.e. 31 floors or a 100 meters tall section with pillars/columns #58-81, free fall drops (acceleration 9.82 m/s²) vertically with no tilting for 2.25 seconds during the collapse, i.e. there is no support/resistance of the upper part above floor 16, when it displaces downward abt 32 meters. See e.g. figure 3.15 in the report (also below)

The 'finding' is however based on measurements from a video and there is no evidence that the video is real and no scientific analysis of the origin of the video has been made. The video could be simple Computer Generated Images, CGI, and the acceleration of the CGI roof line just copy & paste of any free fall drop on Earth.

That the complete top of any wide structure below pillars/columns #58-81 free fall drops on a video is a very strong indication that the video is fake, as no such big part of any structure cannot free fall drop, unless subject to demolition from below.

What a free fall drop is, is explained here! And here!

According non-regulatory agency NIST the constant acceleration of the complete roofline is 32.196 feet/s² or 9.814 m/s² between time 1.75 and 4 seconds, when the roofline velocity increases from 11.57 to 84.01 feet/s or 3.52 to 25.61 m/s!

This acceleration of the roof line is equivalent to gravity acceleration = 100% free fall drop. The average speed during this time is 14.56 m/s and the total free fall displacement is 32.77 meters. This makes some magic controlled demolition the OFFICIAL position of NIST.

Anyone who does not understand this, simply does not understand what free fall drop means. Free fall drop means NOT DOING ANY WORK - INCLUDING DESTROYING STRUCTURE BELOW AT ALL - OTHER THAN FALLING and ACCELERATING.

It evidently means that 32.77 meters height of structure below must have been destroyed completely before the roof line starts to free fall drop. Evidently the falling WTC7 top could not destroy the WTC7 bottom as suggested by NIST.

NIST suggests that this free fall drop was initiated by failure of pillar/column #79 between floors 11/13 followed by a vertical and horizontal progression of failures (no details of course except some strange figures) below floor 16 that apparently removed all support/resistance of the upper part for 32.77 meters vertically down at one side only and the complete structure horizontally.

If WTC7 is represented by three parts A, B and C, where part A is floors 0-6, part B is floors 6-14 (24 meters tall) and part C is floors 14-47 (see picture left), free fall of part C is only possible if, e.g. part B (or more!) is suddenly and totally removed! Then part C free falls on part A.

Free fall dropping upper part C of WTC7 (above floor 14) does not apply any loads at all on the structure below floor 14 during this time!

A free falling part C does not apply any forces or loads on anything (except the air (!) it drops through) until it contacts part A ! So how can the upper part C above floor 14 damage the lower part below floor 14 as suggested by NIST during these 2.25 seconds? What kind of structural analysis is done ... when no loads except air resistance are applied?

Furthermore - NIST suggests that the upper part C deforms itself during these 2.25 seconds ... when no forces (except air resistance) at all are applied to it (all masses of the upper part are in free fall drop!). Same question ... how can a free fall dropping upper part C deform?

NIST has been asked these questions ... and could not reply! Actually NIST ignored all comments made by the public!

The NIST statement on page 57 -

"Computer simulations of … the structural collapse can be used to predict a complex degradation and collapse of a building",

has no foundation in the case of WTC7.

NIST has not done a correct job!

The WTC7 structure does not collapse as shown in figures 3.10-14 due to removing a part of pillar/column #79 as a local failure.

Quite easy for anybody with basic knowledge of structural damage analysis to verify!

When a structure is free fall dropping no internal forces act on the elements in the structure. The video is a fake.



How to destroy WTC7

An explanation how the 24 inner pillars/columns #58-81 below floor 14 could suddenly 'disappear' simultaneously to produce the confirmed 32.77 meters free fall of the structure above is given here. The inner pillars/columns #58-81 between floors 6-13, carrying 81% of the total load, simply 'evaporated' at two locations or floor levels due to a compound applied to them that burnt extremely quickly! The load carried by the inner pillars/columns #58-81 was then transmitted to the wall columns! The wall columns floors 6-13, which previously carried only 19% of the load, now carry 100% of it and cannot resist and buckle inward - they are pulled in by the floor beams! - as can be seen in the rubble. It explains the complete lack of parts of these lower inner columns in the rubble and also the presence of molten steel there and very strange looking pieces of junk! Further thoughts about this matter can be found here.

There are a wide number of energetic materials and components that can be used to produce the local destruction of 24 steel inner pillars/columns #58-81 by simply cutting them to destroy WTC7, and the charges had to be hidden in the lower floors, e.g. floors 6 and 13. But the result could not be hidden! The upper part - floors 14-47 - would not free fall for 2.25 seconds before being destroyed later in contact with ground.

I wonder why professional engineers at NIST like Richard Kayser and Shyam Sunder and their colleagues are making up false structural damage analysis reports? What would their mothers say? Their sons becoming part of a criminal conspiracy in support of terrorism!

Actually, every essential piece of information in the NIST WTC7 report is false and misleading. NIST does not explain the collapse at all! The report is just a description of a massive amount of local failures that would not occur in the first place (due to lack of potential energy produced by gravity alone) and no global total collapse at any speed would or could follow as suggested by NIST.

ASCE, the American Society of Civil Engineers, has a Code of Ethics that the NIST staff should follow:

Fundamental Principles

Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by:

using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare and the environment;

being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity the public, their employers and clients;

striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession; and

supporting the professional and technical societies of their disciplines.

It is clear that NIST does not follow these principles! NIST is actually a criminal organisation supporting terrorism.

And nobody seems to care ... except !

The only conclusion is that WTC7 was destroyed, as actually shown by NIST but not clearly stated, by clever controlled demolition at say floors 6 and 13 by perpetrators with access to latest energetic materials and components available 2001 and that the video is a fake!

(Read also Björkman about

Heiwa Co home page

The 911-report and the CIA Torture report written by members of the U.S. Congress can be read free of charge on the net. I review the reports here where you also can download the reports. Interesting reading. One President of the U.S. encouraged the CIA to use torture to find out how terrorists are brainwashed and another President of the U.S. ordered the murder of a terrorist!