-23 votes

WTC7 - The Gash and How It Got There

WTC7 Gash Graphic

WTC7gashtop Anotated

WTC7 Gash Top Close An

WTc7 Gash Middle2

The column location of this lower hole is uncertain, but it appears to be in the vicinity of column 20:

WTC7 Gash Bottom Anotated

How It Got There...

7 Gash Progression West Composite

7 Gash Progression West Arc Analysis

Collapse sequence begins at 1:25. Piece of interest appears at 1:34:


A north view confirms it lines up with WTC7 near column 20

7 Gash Progression North Composite

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yes, please follow the advice

Yes, please follow the advice of the thread title and take all this foil hat garbage somewhere else.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

For a serious discussion, go to rethink911.org

These "gash" comments of fireant are just pseudoscientific nonsense.

In fact, you don't need the supporting opinions of the ae911 group of engineers or scientists. Look at the video of the building coming down and use your common sense.

Useless to engage with shills in pointless endless "discussion".

Nobody's saying there wasn't

Nobody's saying there wasn't damage from projectile debri. Even if a couple of columns were damaged to the point they offered zero resistance it is impossible the bldg could collapse at free fall. There were 80 structural columns in bldg 7 (24 core 56 exterior) that would of had to be eliminated for that to happen. The NIST report has no explanation for the collapse and refuse to release the parameters used in their models which only cover up to the point of failure. The NIST report is a fraud as is the gash theory.

fireant's picture

The gash is not a theory. It's a fact.

Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at what carried the diagonal load after the south face was severed?

Undo what Wilson did

The "Gash Theory" the weight

The "Gash Theory" the weight of less than 5% (assumes 0 support from columns 19, 20, 21 & 79) of WTC 7 dragged down the remaining 95% at free fall speed. That the undamaged structural support so traumatized by the terror and horror of the attack couldn't bear the burden of carrying on.



A post by fireant concerning bldg 7...

= more lies from our resident "scholastic" shill.

fireant's picture

By all means, write a paper on it for the grand jury.

I'm sure they will be swayed with that.

Undo what Wilson did

Are you trying to prove that

Are you trying to prove that this was the reason for the collapse for WTC-7? There is no way a building of that era would endure a total free-fall collapse due to exterior asymmetrical damage. In fact, due to redundancy and safety factors, WTC-7 would have survived even if entire columns were destroyed. And when you consider the use of the building, an additional factor of safety was considered in the design of the beams and columns. Even if there was damage as you show, it would not lead to the result witnessed.

(Background: Civil Engineer, BS Civil Engineering-Structures, Penn State)

fireant's picture

Please enlighten us. What was carrying the diagonal load after

the south curtain was severed?

Undo what Wilson did

In addition, YOU explain how

In addition, YOU explain how every other building surround the towers had portions of it remain standing?


Giant holes in the buildings of WTC 3, 4 , and 5 yet they didn't magically free fall into their own footprint in a nice neat pile. Your theory bears no weight.

What is a "diagonal load"?

What is a "diagonal load"? There are vertical loads, like live loads and dead loads, and then there are lateral loads, like wind loads and seismic loads. I think you may be referring to the diagonal bracing, but without any plans or computations in front of me, I cannot determine anything, including the location, type, and loading of the lateral supports. But, lateral supports are only to protect against high wind events like hurricanes as seismic protection in NY is non-existent. The removal of the lateral bracing would not cause a TOTAL FREE FALL collapse, in which we saw EVERY SINGLE COLUMN destroyed SIMULTANEOUSLY, along with the foundation. Not even when a bomb tore through the Oklahoma City Federal Building did it result in an entire collapse of the structure. So please stop peddling your blatantly wrong theories. Your doing a great disservice to this community while making yourself look very very foolish and ignorant, at least in the engineering world. Have a good day.

fireant's picture

"total free fall" "every single column" are mischaracterizations

You do a disservice to this community promoting them.
Visual collapse was the outer shell perimeter wall only. Fact. It fell over in two directions. Fact. It broke apart in large multi-story panels. Fact. No sign of cutting at critical break points. Fact.
Diagonal support for the entire south wall was destroyed by the gash.
That means each half of the building could move independent of the other except for one element, the roof truss (there's your answer). Lower portions could still sag laterally. It is a fact the east half was leaning north and the west half was leaning south. It is a fact there was a bulge in the SW corner area early in the day, reported by FDNY, who put a transit on it.
Loss of lateral stability in the core provided an avenue for heat expansion to push core columns out of plumb.
Lateral stability provided by the perimeter curtain ties the whole building together, serving much more purpose than just wind tolerance. The loads carried by the 4 or 5 south wall columns which were lost shifted to other parts of the curtain and the core.

Undo what Wilson did


notice there's no reply...

OK! So the 'gash' did it to WTC-7

How do you explain talcum powdered, certified and reinforced, concrete, that was inches deep all throughout the area?

Collapse doesn't transform concrete into dust in the quantities I saw.

And the vertical beams from WTC 1&2 were amazingly similar in length and angle cuts.
The pieces loaded onto flatbed trailers like they were standard lengths being picked-up at the mill. Right out of the rubble piles. Piping hot, several days later.

On Saturday and Sunday, my last days there, the fire was still producing a cloud of smoke that covered the area from ground zero all the way down beyond Battery Park.

The amount of jet fuel in two airliners was like a spit in the ocean in contrast to the sheer mass of the pulverized towers.

fireant's picture

You answered your own question. They were factory lengths...

They broke apart at their connectors (all connections did not break, so some lengths were double or more).
But you are jumping all over the place. Let's stick with the damage to 7 and how that impacted collapse.

Undo what Wilson did

But there is

an interview with Silverstein where he says to "pull it" (WTC7).

WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It": Explanation Examined

Not saying it didn't get damaged but to implode as it did?

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

"Pull it" isn't a Controlled Demolition term used by industry

The ONLY other recorded example of "pull it" being used related to demolition, was from the physical pulling down of WTC structure with cables, not controlled demolition using explosives. You could watch hours & hours & hours of documentaries that are about controlled demolition and not find any instance of "pull it" being used for any of them. Further, the FDNY had no authority to "controlled demolition" demolish any building, let alone any of the WTC buildings. Also if you try to argue that FDNY demolished 7 WTC, then you would have to entertain the notion that FDNY also helped demolish 1 & 2 WTC, with a few hundred of their own dying during the process. The Larry Silverstein "pull it" comment is used as purposeful misinformation.


Larry Silverstein is not a member of the controlled demolition

industry. So, whether it is an official term of the CDI is irrelevant. It is a slang term used for destroying something with demolition explosives in the broader community. I have heard it used to mean that decades before 2001 in movies and popular culture. Mr. Silverstein is not a young man. It seems plausible he wanted to sound educated on the topic and used jargon he thought appropriate.

If the "pull it" comment is used as purposeful misinformation, to what end is it being used?

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Without causing an argument

I would bet you're unable and incapable of showing any recorded example from history, of the term "pull it" being used for any controlled demolition using explosives anywhere.

Ways it is being used as a piece of multi-pronged misinformation

1. Straw Man

It is easily provable that "pull it" is not a controlled demolition term; no one anywhere has provided any example of "pull it" being used for any controlled demolition using explosives anywhere.

The ONLY "example" that has been presented isn't of controlled demolition using explosives, instead it's of a clean up crew using cables to physically pull down part of WTC structure during clean up work at the WTC site.

"It's a controlled demolition term!" "Prove it." "I can't!" "Case closed."

2. Distraction

Most misinformation & disinformation is meant to muddy the waters and make it more difficult to find the truthful information, among attempting to discredit real information by mixing fake facts with real facts.

It offers convenient distraction and redirection from real facts and evidence, actual foreknowledge or participation, etc. so you get lost on a wild goose chase chasing - and defending - a phantom goose that isn't real.

3. Divisiveness

As with other misinformation & disinformation that is widely propagated and thus defended, it is meant to waste valuable time arguing about and defending, either for or against, and to divide & conquer by forcing sides to be chosen.

The "pull it" comment's been argued about for at least 10 years, yet here we are in 2014 still talking about it: person convinced it's real evidence, repeats it as such; then time is wasted to disprove and/or defend.

Me vs. You, instead of US vs. Them. Get it?


I honestly don't have any idea who the first person was who presented the "pull it" comment as evidence showing Controlled Demolition participation of Larry Silverstein regarding 7 WTC.

But whether it was by legit researcher or by paid operative or asset, it was seized upon both by good intentioned researchers - who didn't know any better - and by those who are tasked with protecting participants of the real 9/11 conspiracy.

In 2024 there are still going to be arguments online about the "pull it" comment, with good intentioned folks who were conned to believe it's real evidence, and operatives or assets, still defending the fake facts. Misinformation operation successful.

So will you admit you could be wrong?

I took these pictures myself from a construction dictionary...


I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!


Yes, I am capable of admitting being wrong. :)

Thank you for that. I just found the same reference at:


So yes, "pull" clearly is used in that type of blasting. I admit, I was wrong that "pull" isn't used in any type of explosive demolition. But still, that isn't the same as controlled demolition of structure, such as a high-rise building; it is of blasting rock in the bottom of a hole. Interesting find regardless. :)

"We're gettin' ready to pull building 6."

at 19 sec.

In this case, it is a controlled demolition with the use of cables.
Like I said, Larry Silverstein is not a demolitions expert. I think his statement on PBS is BS. The man he said he was talking to was a fireman who said to him the fires in the building could not be contained.
I don't think the fireman, who is not a demolitions expert either, would not be given the responsibility to demolish Building 7 using secretly planted demolition charges. The man Silverstein said he talked to on the telephone in that conversation denied talking to Silverstein that day.

There are many phrases that use the word "pull" to mean to trigger something: pull the trigger, pull the pin, pull my finger, etc.

I think Silverstein is a liar. In the end, it really doesn't matter what he said. I think the fortunate timing of his taking the insurance policies out on his buildings makes him suspicious.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

You notice how that is 240p, so you don't have clarity

That was using the cables to physically pull down part of WTC structure, that I explained in my comment above if you would have taken the time to read it. You'll notice also that there are no explosives used in that "pull."

Who expected the towers to collapse?

Why did the mayor and his crew suddenly evacuate the building to begin with? And what about Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority (who died under suspicious circumstances, may his soul rest in peace) - the one who "didn't get the message" to evacuate - who testified to all sorts of structural mayhem within the building *prior* to the towers' collapse? Why was it said that no one died in WTC7 when Jennings said that, when he was finally rescued, they told him not to look down on account of bodies lying there (which he had to step around)? Why wasn't Jennings, a CREDIBLE WITNESS who'd been right in the THICK OF IT, called to testify before the 9/11 Commission? It's not the Silverstein comment alone. It's a lot of things that don't add up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

You'll notice, if you read my comment

That I didn't mention any of that. Try to read what I said.

I read all your comments. I'm aware

that you didn't mention any of what I said. That's why I did.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir



It seemed to me that you were

taking issue over the Silverstein comment. Frankly, I now don't know who to believe re the term "pull it" (which from 9/11 documentaries and video clips, I was under the impression was a fairly generic term to mean to deliberately take down a building via explosives (or other means), i.e., to demolish a building. Even assuming you were correct *on that point* (that it's not a term ever used for demolition with explosives), it wouldn't close the WTC7 issue for me. And so, I raised the other questions I still have, saying, "It's not the Silverstein comment alone. It's a lot of things that don't add up." I don't get your snicker. Oh, well.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

It wasn't a snicker.

Perhaps I was agreeing with you, or perhaps just acknowledging what you meant with your other reply.