The NIST WTC 7 Report:
Bush Science reaches its peak
Kevin R. Ryan
September 10, 2008
In a famous book by Antoine de Saint Exupery, a little prince from another
planet asks the narrator to draw a sheep. After several unsatisfactory attempts,
the narrator simply draws a box and tells the little prince that the sheep is
in the box. The little prince then exclaims -- "That is exactly the way I wanted
it!"1
Just so, the Bush Administration asked its scientists at the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) for an explanation as to what happened at
the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11. In response to this request, NIST drew
up a series of fanciful stories over a period of years, each story differing
from the previous one. Finally, after seven long years, NIST published its
last story for WTC 7 by simply saying, in effect: "The explanation is in our
computer."2
As expected, however, this explanation in a box leaves much to be desired for
those of us who prefer to live in reality, instead of in a fictional world.
On the other hand, we are learning something from NIST with this new report,
and that is that when government scientists begin working for a political agenda
above all else, there is no limit to the extent of deception that they will
engage in. We also know that those who have produced the NIST WTC reports must
now assume personal responsibility for the ongoing 9/11 Wars, and the millions
of deaths that will result from those wars.
NIST begins with a few little white lies, and never looks back
NIST unveiled its WTC 7 report by making a new diversionary claim that it worked
only three years on the investigation. But, to the contrary, we know that NIST
began its work in August 2002 and decoupled its WTC 7 report in June 2004, after
creating hundreds of pages of detailed reports for WTC 7.3
The investigation ostensibly began anew in September 2005, after the report for
the towers was sputtered out. Since then -- other than for several "responses
to FAQs" on the report for the towers -- NIST has focused entirely on WTC 7.
This means that, in full, NIST worked on its final explanation for the destruction
of WTC 7 for at least five years, not three.
However, as the reader will see, NIST did learn from its experience in deceiving
the public about the towers. One way in which NIST learned to avoid criticism
was to pretend that it had considered alternative theories. In its presentation
on the draft WTC 7 report, NIST claimed, "We were very open to alternative theories."
But that claim could be seen as true only if one turned a blind eye to many
facts indicating the exact opposite was true, including the following:
- NIST ignored all invitations from independent investigators
to discuss or debate its findings or the alternative theory.
- NIST's previous reports show no evidence that NIST considered alternative
theories at all. Only one small disclaimer was made in the final report for
the towers, and only after public criticism that no mention of alternative theories
was made in the draft report for the towers.
- 9/11 family members and independent investigators have had to pursue
legal avenues to seek the truth from NIST, including a request for correction
that has ultimately been ignored by NIST.4
- Those citizens who have successfully criticized NIST in public
have lost their jobs for doing so.
- NIST makes no mention of the mainstream scientific articles published
in support of the alternative theory.5
Another important lesson NIST learned from its report on the towers was this:
if you perform actual physical tests to support a politically motivated conclusion,
those tests had better support that conclusion. The physical tests NIST and
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) performed for the investigation on the towers
did not support the predetermined conclusions that NIST, and its bosses at the
Bush Administration, sought to maintain.6
NIST avoided that problem with the WTC 7 investigation by simply not performing
any physical tests to support its theory. Instead of throwing a few beams and
columns together and heating them to see what might happen, NIST built its final
story on nothing but computer models that it said took excruciatingly long periods
of time to process ("... a 25 s analysis took up to 8 weeks to complete.")
In other words, for NIST, avoiding problems means avoiding reality.
Oh, forget about the diesel fuel
In its new draft report based entirely on computer models, NIST contradicts
its previous statements that suggested the building was destroyed due to fires
caused by diesel fuel. This was despite the fact that, after several years
of investigation, NIST still believed that the diesel fuel had made all the
difference. NIST used its partner, Popular Mechanics, to communicate
the diesel fuel theory.
In a March 2005 article that was later expanded into a farcical book, Popular
Mechanics (PM), claimed "investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks
of diesel fuel." Sivaraj Shyam Sunder, the leading deceiver for NIST and PM,
expounded on this claim by stating "Our current working hypothesis is that this
pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."7
But like the previous explanations for the towers (remember the pancake theory?),
the final explanation for WTC 7 bears no resemblance to the earlier versions.
NIST simply states in its new report that the diesel fuel played no role in
the destruction of WTC 7.
"However, fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7."
(NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii)
Oddly enough, no one in the major media seemed to notice. Even the New
York Times, which had published scores of articles referring to WTC 7 and
diesel fuel since 9/11, played along with this complete reversal without skipping
a beat. Reporter Eric Lipton, who previously had written of WTC 7's "disastrous
blaze fed by diesel fuel", simply suggested that NIST's Sunder, in explaining
his new theory, was being very patient with the "conspiracy theorists".8
Oh, and forget about the damage caused by the falling towers, too
For years, we were also told that WTC 7 fell because 25% of the building was
"scooped out" by falling debris from the towers. This completely unsupported
claim came from a media driven exaggeration of another statement Sunder made
to his supporters at PM. Sunder claimed that "On about a third of the
face to the center and to the bottom -- approximately 10 stories -- about 25
percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."9
Of course, one third of one quarter only makes one twelfth, not 25%, but that
was not important. As with the other official stories and exaggerated media
versions of them, everyone knew that the goal for NIST and the Bush Administration
was to make people stop thinking about it. That's probably why so many of the
official/media legends centered on food analogies. There was the pancake theory,
and licorice steel, and the donut (WTC 6). And as with those, the "scooped
out" phrase sent the blood running quickly from the brain to the stomach
in anticipation of an ice cream treat. Celebrities like Denis Leary and Alan
Colmes just ate it up and regurgitated it, as did Matthew Rothschild, Manuel
Garcia, and every other pretentious supporter of the official conspiracy theory.
It turns out that the "scooped out" nonsense was just more speculative
deception. NIST knew that it would never be able to support such a claim with
real science, as even the simplest evaluations disputed it. It was evident
that the debris pattern at Ground Zero was incredibly asymmetrical, and NIST
probably didn't want to have to explain that anyway. But no one would believe
that falling debris had "scooped out" so much of WTC 7, while the buildings
immediately adjacent to WTC 7 incurred essentially no damage at all from the
falling towers. Not even Larry could be so lucky.
Additionally, it was clear that such extreme, asymmetric damage would have
caused an asymmetric collapse, not a straight down free-fall speed collapse
as we see in the videos. In the end, NIST gave up on the "scooped out" explanation,
stating:
"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris
from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." NCSTAR
1A, p xxxii
For those who were looking for easy answers, this new story means that the
blood must leak back to the brain after all. But NIST is hoping that, by now,
we've forgotten how to think altogether.
Molten metal? What molten metal?
NIST, in its final report on WTC 7, ignored all of the evidence relating to
molten metal, even though numerous reliable witnesses spoke of the presence
of molten metal at Ground Zero. These witnesses included Richard Garlock, a
structural engineer at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, an engineering firm involved
in the design of the towers and the clean up of the site, who said "Here WTC
6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running."10
The witnesses to molten metal also included University of California, Berkeley
engineering professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, who was the first scientist given
access to the steel at ground zero. Dr. Astaneh-Asl referred to the WTC steel
he found as "kind of melted."11 Years later, when asked again about his experience
he clarified, "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."12
There are many other reports of molten metal at ground zero, including quite
a few from those who support the Bush Administration's ever-changing fire-induced
collapse theories. There are also photos supporting the reports of molten metal.13
But NIST continues to ignore all of this evidence in its new report.
Paper thin steel and sulfidation? What paper thin steel and sulfidation?
Since the WTC report from the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA)
came out in 2002, the most intriguing aspect of the official stories given was
the problem that the New York Times called "perhaps the deepest mystery
uncovered in the investigation."14 This mystery
referred to the extremely thinned pieces of steel discovered by FEMA investigators,
and also by Astaneh-Asl.15 These samples were found
to exhibit sulfidation, and evidence of a eutectic formation, that could not
be explained by any of the "fire-wise" professors.
The fire-wise professors
originally said this about the mystery, after seven to eight months of investigation.
"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are
a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has
been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that
this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse
of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse
and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into
the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any,
is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning
fires."16
But that "detailed investigation" never got done, it turns out. And
although NIST never mentioned any of this in its new WTC 7 report, Sivaraj Shyam
Sunder did have to answer a question about it in his recent press conference.
Sunder simply said that those fire-wise professors had thought more about it,
and told the BBC that it wasn't a mystery after all.
We can be sure that those professors did think more about it. But without
the detailed study they originally called for, the deepest mystery remains officially
unsolved.
Explosive thermite? What explosive thermite?
An actual explanation for the sulfidation and extreme thinning of steel has
been offered by independent investigators, and is fully consistent with the
alternative theory that NIST has avoided all these years. The thermite reaction,
available in several useful variations for the purposes of cutting steel, can
explain this thinning and sulfidation quite readily.
The thermite hypothesis for the WTC was first detailed by Derrick Grimmer of
the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE).17
This hypothesis was later expanded into an experimentally supported theory by
Professor Steven Jones.18
When asked about thermite in the WTC 7 press conference, Sunder pretended that
NIST was not aware of the explosive forms of this chemical mixture, called super-thermite
or nano-thermite. Instead, Sunder claimed that thermite could not be applied
adequately in order to serve the purpose of a deceptive demolition. Sunder's
answer, apart from being vague and unsupported, is also in direct contradiction
to the fact that a number of the NIST WTC investigation leaders had expert knowledge
of nano-thermites, and that such materials can be sprayed onto surfaces like
steel.19
NIST's new report ignores many other important pieces of evidence that support
the alternative theory. This evidence includes the many witnesses to explosions,
the many people who were warned that the building was coming down, and the prediction,
by several major media outlets, that the building was coming down well before
it actually did.20
As we see with the explanation that took NIST five years to provide, no one
could have possibly predicted anything like it.
"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery"
If the public reaction to this report were not so important to the future of
all people around the world, this statement by NIST would be laughable. The
destruction of WTC 7, never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report at all,
was clearly a great mystery to government investigators since 9/11. But more
importantly, after several years of investigation, it was still a great mystery
to NIST and Sivaraj Shyam Sunder.
In fact, Sunder reported to New York Magazine in 2006 that "But truthfully,
I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7."21
That statement is quite different from what he says today, of course. When
interviewed by the Associated Press immediately after presenting this new report,
Sunder glibly said, "The public should really recognize the science is really
behind what we have said," adding, "The obvious stares you in the
face."22
Let's take a look at what is suddenly so obvious about this new story, remembering
that no actual scientific experiments are behind it, other than computer simulations
that we will likely never be allowed to examine.
Thermal expansion, not weakening, softening, shortening or sagging
In NIST's computer, steel can do just about anything. We saw that in the report
for the towers, where we were told that similar computerized office fires made
floors sag, columns shorten, and large quantities of steel melt soften
weaken. This time, we have what NIST calls a "new phenomenon" for structural
steel, called thermal expansion.
"Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column
79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures.
In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough
that they pushed the girder connecting Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the
13th floor."
"The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13
to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor ...
This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support in the east-west direction.
The column buckled eastward, becoming the initial local failure for collapse
initiation." NCSTAR 1-A, p 19-20
With this summary statement, NIST begins its explanation with a sleight of
hand. The "initial local failure" is not a column buckling according
to this new story, but is the displacement of a girder by means of the thermal
expansion of up to five floor beams. It is there that we must begin our analysis
of NIST's new story, and if that is not realistic, then none of the remaining
explanation for WTC 7 is realistic.
We should begin with a fact described in one of NIST's earlier reports on WTC
7.
"Most of the beams and girders [in WTC 7] were made composite with the slabs
through the use of shear studs." NCSTAR 1-1, p 14
NIST now contradicts this earlier finding, in order to support the new story.
"In WTC 7 no studs were installed on the girders." NCSTAR 1-9, p 346
For the thermal expansion story, this presence of shear studs holding the concrete
floor to the beams and girders is important. The studs were 0.75 in x 5 in
long, and were positioned every 1 to 2 ft along the beam or girder, according
to NCSTAR 1-1. There were 28 of these studs for each of the five beams that
supposedly expanded. NIST deceptively played down all those shear studs in
its recent presentation, where a simple diagram falsely suggested there were
only three studs for each beam.
For the allegedly displaced girder, according to NIST's first report there
would have been a similar number of shear studs, placed at intervals of 1 to
2 feet, for a total of at least 22 studs. But NIST's new report removes all
of these in order to make it easier for the girder to be pushed out. Some of
NIST's other diagrams indicate that the girder was fastened to column 79 with
only two seat bolts. There were, in fact, two seat bolts and two clip bolts
for each girder/column connection. Additionally, NIST unconvincingly tells
us that it "found no evidence that the girders or beams in WTC 7 were welded
to the seats" (NCSTAR 1-9, p 348). Of course, by now we know what NIST
means when it says it "found no evidence."
This is what the basic premise of NIST's new story looks like, if we assume
there was no seat welding, and all the shear studs have been removed, or have
broken away from, the beams and the girder.
 NCSTAR 1-9, p 346
As we can see, it appears NIST is telling us that the loose beams (only one
shown) deflected the loose girder a distance of several feet. Even if we believe
that WTC 7 was built in such a shoddy manner, is this hypothesis realistic?
First, note that thermal expansion is not a new phenomenon, and structural
steel was not just invented for use at the WTC. Such effects have been a possibility
in all of the thousands of other situations in which structural steel was heated
throughout history. So what enormous new difference did thermal expansion make
for WTC 7?
The floor beams that NIST is speaking of, that supposedly pushed the girder
between column 79 and column 44 completely out of place, were each about 52
feet, or 15.8 meters, in length. The equation for linear thermal expansion
is as follows:
ΔL = α
Lo ΔT
That is, the increase in length of the object considered is a function of the
product of the coefficient of linear expansion (a), the original length, and the change in temperature.
The coefficient of linear expansion for steel is about 0.000012 m/m/°C.
Using the equation above, the beams could have expanded 0.019 m for every 100
°C increase in temperature. Remember
also that any thermal linear expansion would have been acting on the external
columns of WTC 7's east wall as well, because thermal expansion does not affect
just one end of a beam. Whatever distance the beams pushed NIST's critical
girder, the same distance in bowing out of the east wall of WTC 7 would have
had to occur, unless WTC 7 was a very unstable structure to begin with. Therefore,
half of the total expansion length (0.01 m) would have affected NIST's critical
girder for every 100 °C increase in
temperature.
For NIST's new story, those floor beams would have had to not only expand linearly,
but also break 28 high-strength shear studs, 2 seat bolts, 2 clip bolts (and
seat welds), and then cause the buckling of a gigantic girder (which also had
22 shear studs) before the beams themselves buckled or even weakened. This
is quite the opposite of what NIST says happened in the towers, where the official
story is that the floors sagged dramatically. In WTC7, NIST now says the floors
did not sag or weaken a bit, but remained fiercely rigid as high-temperature
linear expansion caused them to wreak havoc on the surrounding structure.
Highly exaggerated temperatures leave beams rigid
To accomplish the linear expansion, the beams first had to get very hot. NIST
says that its computer models suggest that "some sections" of these beams
reached 600 °C.
"Due to the effectiveness of the SFRM, the highest column temperatures
in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 °C (570 °F), and only on the east side
of the building did the floor beams reach or exceed about 600 °C." NCSTAR
1A, p 19
"The temperatures of some sections of the beams supporting Floors
8, 12, 13, and 14 exceeded 600 °C." NCSTAR 1A, p 48
These extremely high steel temperatures would most certainly have resulted
in the weakening of the beams, once the shear studs had been lost, allowing
the thermal expansion to be relieved through downward sagging. This fact is
supported by the experimental data produced by the Cardington tests, described
in NCSTAR 1-9 (section 8.4.3), where much shorter floor beam spans experienced
significant sagging. Therefore, this rigid beam linear expansion hypothesis
is not realistic.
In any case, although NIST does not state it clearly in the new report, a 575
°C increase in temperature would have
caused the girder end of the beams to experience a maximum of 2.2 inches
of deflection. And if it were only a "section," for example only
a third of a beam length, then the increase from thermal expansion would be
correspondingly smaller (or 0.7 inches). This makes NIST's story of all those
bolts and studs breaking in unison, and that critical girder buckling, quite
unbelievable.
But how did the beams reach 600 °C in the first place? In the real world, this would have required
very hot fires for a very long time. In NIST's computer, of course, this was
not a problem. As with the report for the towers, these cyber-space investigators
only needed to fudge a few numbers, like the thermal conductivity of the materials
involved. Structural steel has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/m/K, which means
that any heat applied is easily wicked away. But if that value were set to
zero, or near zero, any heat applied would allow the temperature to rise dramatically
at the point of application.
"The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus,
no thermal conductivity was used." NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20
"The interior walls [including insulated steel columns] were assumed
to have the properties of gypsum board [0.5 W/m/K]." NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52
"Although the floor slab actually consisted of a metal deck topped
with a concrete slab...the thermal properties of the entire floor slab were
assumed to be that of concrete [1.0 W/m/K]." NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52
Fudging the thermal conductivity values, and extrapolating the localized computer
results across vast sections of the building, appears to be how NIST scientists
convinced themselves that they could promote the high steel temperatures.
But also note that raising those five floor beams to a temperature of 600 °C
would require an enormous amount of energy, far more than was available from
the burning of the office furnishings underneath the floor beams. Of course,
NIST has not had any trouble selling such leaps of imagination before, as its
media sponsors don't ask detailed questions and NIST does not discuss its reports
with independent investigators.
Brief office fires in an environment designed for fire resistance
Further problems for NIST's new story result from admissions NIST has made
about the state of the fires in the building, and the design of the structure.
NIST admits that the fires in WTC 7 were typical office fires, and that the
fires could not move from floor to floor.
"Their growth and spread were consistent with ordinary building contents
fires." NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii
"There was no evidence of floor-to-floor fire spread until perhaps just before
the WTC 7 collapse. Thus, the fire-rated floors were successful as fire penetration
barriers." NCSTAR 1A, p 55
NIST also admits that the building was designed to comply with New York City
Building Code, requiring fire resistance of 3 hours for columns and 2 hours
for floors.
"The instructions to the bidders for the WTC 7 job were to bid on
a 3 h rating for the columns and a 2 h rating for the fluted steel decking and
floor support steel, which corresponded to the more stringent fire resistance
requirements for Type 1B (unsprinklered) construction." NCSTAR 1A, p 7
"Private inspectors found that the applied SFRM thicknesses were consistent
with these values." NCSTAR 1A, p 7 (also see NCSTAR 1-9, table 8-1, p
340)
Add to these facts that NIST admitted in their December 2007 advisory committee
meeting that the fuel load could only support 20 minutes of fire in any given location.
"Question: ...fire moved every 20 minutes; essentially it started
and stopped every 20 minutes, so if you do not have fuel in WTC 7, how could
fires burn for as long as they had and taken out this major structure that had
good fireproofing?"
"Answer (Sunder): The fires moved from location to location, meaning
that at any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed.
While the combustibles at a location were being consumed, the fire front would
be progressing to adjacent combustibles."23
For floors 11 and 12, NIST increased this estimated fuel load from 4 lb/ft2
to 6.4 lb/ft2, presumably giving a new maximum fire time of 32 minutes.
Even so, how then did NIST come up with fire times of 3.5 to 4 hours?
"However, it appeared likely the critical damage state occurred between
3.5 h and 4 h." NCSTAR 1A, p 32
What could possibly have been burning, under those beams, for another three
hours?
Without answers to these questions, we must assume that NIST is now suggesting
specific corporate culpability for the failure of WTC 7.
Basically, NIST is saying Underwriters Laboratories is to blame
To sum up, steel components that were certified to withstand hours of fire
failed in typical office fires lasting a maximum of 32 minutes in any given
location. That means that there must have been negligence, or extremely poor
performance, on the part of those who ensured the fire resistance of the structural
components.
With the report on the towers, NIST pretended that it was a mystery as to who
tested the steel components for fire resistance. But, in fact, it wasn't actually
that much of a mystery unless you asked UL while the whole country was watching.24
But for WTC 7, NIST comes right out and says that UL was the firm that provided
the fire resistance information for the building.
"According to the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Fire Resistance Directory (1983),
these ratings required a thickness of 7/8 in. of Monokote MK-5 to be applied to
the heavy columns, 1 7/8 in. to be applied to the lighter columns, 1/2 in. to be
applied to the beams, and 3/8 in. to be applied to the bottom of the metal deck."
NCSTAR 1A, p 7
That's one good reason why UL is not listed as being part of the WTC 7 investigation.
Having the company that was responsible for establishing the fire resistance
of the building participate in the politically motivated investigation into
how the building failed from fire might just be a conflict of interest.
The problem NIST and UL have now is that confirming UL's involvement in the
WTC 7 design, when the official story is centered only on failure by fire, could
lead to greater problems for UL. It is clear that UL must now answer for how
the structural components of WTC 7 failed catastrophically, in typical office
fires, when UL's Fire Resistance Directory reported that these components would
resist fire damage for much longer.
The final WTC 7 story and how it was predicted
After years of talking about diesel fuel fires and damage from the towers being
the causes of the near free-fall collapse of WTC 7, and then acting as if they
just couldn't get a handle on it, NIST now has a new "obvious" story.
The new story is based on a "new phenomenon" of thermal expansion whereby
fully insulated steel beams are exposed to temperatures of 600 °C
in only 32 minutes. Believe it or not, NIST actually says this happened in
only a few seconds (NCSTAR 1-9, table 8-2, p 353).
This extreme temperature, which did not weaken the beams at all, as would have
happened in WTC 1 or WTC 2, broke all the shear studs, seat bolts and clip bolts
on all the beams of the east wall of WTC 7. The beams then expanded linearly,
pushing the girder between column 79 and column 44 by a maximum of 2.2 inches,
causing that critical girder to buckle and fall away from columns 79 and 44.
We have seen that this "initial local failure" is not realistic.
This is because the fire times could not possibly have caused the high steel
temperatures cited, the steel would not have remained rigid if those temperatures
had been reached, and the very slight thermal expansion would not have been
great enough to cause the extensive girder damage imagined by NIST.
From that tenuous position, we are led to believe that the one fallen girder
caused one column to buckle and that meant the total destruction of this 47-story
building in a matter of seconds.
But who could have predicted all of this? NIST admits that this is a rare
phenomenon that it had to work hard to prove.
"Failure of a floor beam in fire is a rare event, and, indeed, there
have been many building fires that have not resulted in even local failures
of the floor system. The challenge was to determine if a fire-induced floor
system failure could occur in WTC 7 under an ordinary building contents fire."
NCSTAR 1-9, p 330
What geniuses knew that this new phenomenon of the thermal expansion of several
floor beams in unison would cause this one hair-trigger girder to bring the
entire building down several hours before it actually occurred?
Many people did, including at least 60 fire department employees, more than
25 medical and emergency workers, and both CNN and the BBC.25
And if you believe all that...
NIST topped off this most ridiculous of explanations with a truly bizarre consideration
of a "hypothetical blast event."
First, NIST asks us to assume that it wasn't a planned demolition. We are
led to believe that no one would have placed explosive charges around the entire
building to cause what appears to everyone who sees it as a completely symmetrical
and purely vertical near free-fall implosion.
On the contrary, NIST says that if WTC 7 was to have been a demolished, it
would have to begin with an assumption that most of their new story is correct.
That is, anybody wanting to bring the building down in a demolition event would
have obviously placed one gigantic bomb under that one all important column
-- column 79.
Therefore, let's play along with this dishonest pretense and see what NIST
says that would do.
A "Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing the critical
column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance
of at least half a mile. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise,
nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC
7 collapse." NCSTAR 1-A, p xxxii
Essentially, NIST is saying that WTC 7 was not a demolition because a big boom
would make a big sound. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the culmination of seven
years of Bush Science.
No failure of imagination here
The 9/11 Commission told us that the attacks on September 11th succeeded
ultimately because of a "failure of imagination." NIST will never be
accused of that kind of failure, as its new WTC 7 report is nothing but imaginary
tripe.
This new story contradicts the previous major claims by NIST, ignores the most
important of the existing evidence, produces no scientific test results to support
itself, and is so obviously false on its face that not even a fictional character
from another planet would believe it. Fires that could only last 20 to 30 minutes
lasted 4 hours (what was burning?). Imaginary temperatures that, according
to NIST would have easily weakened the same steel in the towers, left beams
fully rigid so that they could push one girder a full 2.2 inches, somehow breaking
numerous bolts and studs in unison, as well as buckling the girder, before the
beams themselves were affected in any way. Suddenly this one girder failure
caused numerous floors to collapse, one hair-trigger "switch" column to buckle,
and the whole building to fall in a total of 8 seconds.
NIST tells us that most of these unprecedented, illogical and thoroughly fantastic
events were happening within the box of WTC 7 itself, before we saw anything.
Of course, they have absolutely no evidence for any of these things happening
in the real world. But by now we know that it doesn't matter. The Bush scientists
only need to keep their bosses' sadistic political story viable for a few more
months.
References and footnotes
1 Antoine de Saint Exupery, Le Petit Prince, Harcourt Brace & Co,
1943
2 NIST, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST website,
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
3 NIST reports prior to September 2005, that focused solely on WTC 7, include
these:
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1I.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf
Early NIST reports that covered WTC 7, as well as the towers, include the following:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03040.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/MediaUpdate%20_FINAL_ProgressReport051303.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardR0028.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/PublicUpdateFinal.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1D.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1E.pdf
4 James Gourley, et al, "Appeal Filed with NIST, Pursuant to Earlier Request for Correction," Journal of 9/11 Studies, November 2007, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf
5 Mainstream scientific articles published in support of the alternative theories for WTC 7, include the following:
Steven Jones, Frank Legge, et al, "Fourteen Points of Agreement
with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction,"
The Open Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 2 Issue 1,
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM
Kevin Ryan, James Gourley, and Steven Jones, "Environmental anomalies
at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials," The Environmentalist,
August 2008, DOI: 10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4, http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
6 See papers by Kevin Ryan (August 2006), Eric Douglas (December 2006), and
James Gourley (November 2007), at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, http://www.journalof911studies.com/
7 Popular Mechanics editors, Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special
Report, March 2005, http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
8 Eric Lipton, "Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says," New York Times, August 22, 2008; James Glanz and
Eric Lipton, "A NATION CHALLENGED: GROUND ZERO; Burning Diesel Is Cited
in Fall Of 3rd Tower," New York Times, March 2, 2002
9 Popular Mechanics editors, Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
10 Public Broadcasting Corporation (PBS), America Rebuilds: A year at ground zero, http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html
11 Jeffrey R. Young, "Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually," The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 7, 2001, http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i15/15a02701.htm
12 Online Newshour, Collapse of Overpass in California Becomes Lesson in Construction, May 10, 2007, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html
13 World Trade Center Hotspots, Nasathermalimages.com, http://nasathermalimages.com/
14 James Glanz and Eric Lipton, "A Search for Clues In Towers' Collapse; Engineers Volunteer to Examine Steel Debris Taken to Scrapyards," The New York Times, February 2, 2002
15 Robert Sanders, "Report from ground zero: Engineer studies World Trade Center collapse for clues to failure," The Berkeleyan, October 3, 2001, http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html
16 FEMA BPAT report, Appendix C, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
17 D.P. Grimmer, "Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite to Melt Sections of the WTC Core Columns," June 20, 2004, Physics911.net, http://physics911.net/thermite
18 Steven E. Jones, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?," Journal of 9/11 Studies, September 2006, http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf
Steve E. Jones et al, "Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade
Center destruction," Journal of 9/11 Studies, January 2008, http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
19 Kevin Ryan, "The top ten connections between NIST and nano-thermites",
Journal of 9/11 Studies, July 2008, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
20 For the 60 FDNY reports, see Graeme MacQueen, "Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories," Journal of 9/11 Studies, January 2008. For the warning given to medical responders, see History Commons (9/11 Timeline), http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a430wtc7evacuated. For CNN and BBC, see WTC7.net, http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html.
21 Marc Jacobsen, "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll," New York Magazine, March 20, 2006, http://nymag.com/news/features/16464/
22 The Associated Press, "Report: Fire, not bombs, leveled WTC 7 building," August 21, 2008, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-08-21-wtc-nist_N.htm
23 NIST Advisory Committee meeting minutes, December 18th, 2007, http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf
24 Kevin Ryan, "Three Years Later: Another Look At Three Claims from UL," 911truth.org http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070919215921873
25 For the 60 FDNY reports, see Graeme MacQueen, "Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories," Journal of 9/11 Studies, January 2008. For the warning given to medical responders, see History Commons (9/11 Timeline), http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a430wtc7evacuated. For CNN and BBC, see WTC7.net, http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html.
| 