WTC7 ten years after

NIST not only got it’s science wrong but according to David Chandler, member of the American Association of Physics Teachers, it also did so fraudulently.

Let’s not bother, at this point, with pundits who sweep in, say they couldn’t be bothered reviewing the evidence and then proceed to call anyone who questions the NIST explanation a “whack-job”.

Better to stick to the science and the verifiable facts. Here is some of the science and NIST’s reaction to it:

Here’s what happens when science confronted NIST:

… and again:

NIST Enginner Caught Lying!

John Gross, one of the lead engineers of the NIST report is questioned about the existence of molten steel at the WTC building, the collapse of Building 7, and also explains how the NIST report did not do any analysis of the collapse of all three buildings. This video was shot on October 18, 2006. John Gross was asked to come speak at the University of Texas at Austin by the Phil. M. Ferguson Fund. A UT 9/11 Truth student organization called A Project for the New American Citizen was there to ask questions and film his response. This footage may appear in Loose Change Final Cut.

911 Research said:

Ironically, the vast majority of those who created and promoted that propaganda probably did so innocently, never questioning the official version of events.

Academics helped to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers in articles in respected publications. Just two days after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using “elastic dynamic analysis.” “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? – Simple Analysis” was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent.

Here is another commentary on the NIST Report:

The most important part of NIST’s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse. In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NIST’s investigation: [i]

“NIST’s so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model. The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened…

The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results you’re looking for is called selection bias. If you think about it, NIST’s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias. Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesn’t show what actually did happen.”

Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse:[ii]

[i] Youtube
[ii] NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, “Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.111.http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm

Foreign Policy Journal adds:

A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.[3] A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact.

However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories. The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model.

Another requisite for a scientific theory is that the empirical data the theory is based on must be reproducible by others. Other scientists must be able to perform the exact same experiments and obtain the exact same results.

Unfortunately, NIST’s only empirical data to explain the eight story buckling, the data their computer model is based on, is unavailable to independent researchers. It is unavailable because NIST refuses to release it. NIST has stated that releasing the data “might jeopardize public safety”.[4]

So because the NIST model cannot be verified, it is meant to be taken on faith. The NIST model, then, is faith-based, not science-based.

More on this later. NIST itself appeared to soften its stance, as of 7/5/07:

A new eyewitness inside WTC-7 on the morning of 9/11 heard explosions before either of the Twin Towers collapsed. He was summoned to the Office of Emergency Management Operating Center (OEMOC), also known as “Rudy’s Bunker,” on the 23rd floor of the building. The center had been especially prepared for the Mayor and other officials to gather in case of a terrorist attack or other emergency. Some have wondered why Giuliani did not go to the OEMOC but instead remained some distance from the World Trade Center. This witness, who testified at official hearings and whose identity will be revealed in the general-theater-release version of “Loose Change,” has information that sheds light on this and other questions about WTC-7.

In its latest press release (29 June 2007), NIST acknowledges that it is “considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse . . . (and) led to (WTC-7′s) structural failure” (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html). Blast events would be consistent with a controlled demolition.

This is not reported by debunkers. It continues:

Even James Glanz, a reporter for The New York Times, admitted in an early story (29 November 2001) that the collapse of WTC-7 is even more perplexing than is the destruction of the Twin Towers, because no reinforced, steel structure high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire in the history of structural engineering. “Indeed, no steel structure high-rise collapsed due to fire before 9/11 nor after 9/11 – nor, if our research is correct, on 9/11.”

The Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002 , said:

Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract.”

Steel and debris from the site was sent to Fresh Kills where it was examined and sifted. As the Department of Sanitation could no longer handle the steel with their equipment, and … engineers thought the steel would destabilize the landfill, DDC received verbal permission to ship the steel to New Jersey. By the end of June 2002, over 1.6 million tons of steel and other debris were removed from the site.

and:

“[O]n September 28, the New York Times learned that the city was recycling the steel. When the Times contacted Kenneth R. Holden, commissioner of the Department of Design and Construction, he said that no one from the investigative team had asked him to keep or inspect the steel.

The ASCE, it turned out, had faxed a request, but to the wrong fax machine. Late that afternoon, after reporters shuttled the correct fax number to the ASCE, Holden said that a request had finally reached him.”

Mayor Giuliani had been asked to halt the removal but his office did not respond to these requests. Commissioner Kenneth R. Holden … was given an award in 2002 by the AIA New York Chapter after he had overseen the criminal destruction of the steel from the World Trade Center.

Rememberbuilding 7 states:

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.[i]

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii]

The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Eyewitness:

Barry Jennings was Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority. He was inside Tower 7 when the second plane had struck tower 2. He very clearly states he heard multiple explosions well before the collapse of Tower 7, and he barely made it out due to these explosions.

Here is a demolition expert on the subject [H/T Revolution Harry]:http://youtu.be/877gr6xtQIc

Another demolition expert:

Another:

And more:

“In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts” says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also … Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that “WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives”.

Foreign Policy Journal acknowledges difficulties with CD:

There definitely are problems with the controlled demolition explosives theories. For instance, although there is some evidence of explosive sounds,[6] in the available audio/visual evidence of the WTC 7 collapse, you don’t see the flashes and the loud booms typically seen with explosive controlled demolitions. But the sounds and flashes could be muted by Romex blasting mats,[7] for example.

Non-typical technologies could also have been used. Recent experiments by the engineer Jonathan Cole have shown that relatively small amounts of thermate, thermite mixed with sulfur, can cut through vertical support beams like a shaped charge and yet produce much less noise.[8] These experiments also show that thermate can also easily weaken beams and cut bolts.

Note that in typical controlled demolitions the building’s structure is weakened as much as possible to minimize the amount of high explosive needed. Explosive nano-thermite has also been found in the WTC dust.[9]

So the inescapable and disturbing conclusion is that the most scientific theory available for the WTC 7 collapse is that it was a controlled demolition, brought down with explosives. This conclusion shows without a doubt that a thorough independent scientific investigation into the 9/11 event must be undertaken. Until now, this has not been done.

Another simple take, for good measure:

http://youtu.be/mI3wZM47LxU

This is one of the key vids dealing with NIST’s claim that there were no explosions:

The chemical aspects:

Rememberingbuilding7 said:

Ignoring the Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did not test for evidence of explosives, because, according to NIST spokesperson Michael Newman:

“If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time… and the tax payers’ money.” [i]

NIST also claimed that no steel was recovered from Building 7. While it is true that virtually all of the steel from Building 7 was destroyed illegally, this claim is blatantly contradicted by Appendix C of the FEMA Building Performance Study, which called for further study of a piece of steel recovered from Building 7 that had experienced a “severe high temperature corrosion attack.” [ii]

The Worcester Polytechnic Institute Journal, Transformations, described this piece of steel, saying: [iii]

“A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges–which are curled like a paper scroll–have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes–some larger than a silver dollar–let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending–but not holes.”

The authors of Appendix C explained that, “the severe erosion found in several beams [in the debris field of Building 7] warranted further consideration.” [iv]

They hypothesized that a eutectic formed in the steel at approximately 1000° C due to a slow sulfidation process in the debris pile, however, independent researchers challenged this hypothesis, arguing that: [v]

“[T]o form a molten iron-oxygen-sulfur eutectic at about 1000° C would require a very high concentration of sulfur… The fact that sulfur evaporates at a low temperature, 445° C, along with the very low levels of elemental sulfur in office buildings appears to preclude the possibility that the eutectic could have formed as a result of a slow sulfidation process in the debris pile.”

The authors of Appendix C concluded by saying, “No clear explanation for the source of sulfur has been identified…A detailed study into the mechanisms of the phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”

Notes:

[i] Jennifer Abel, “Theories of 9/11,” Hartford Advocate, January 29, 2008. http://www.ae911truth.org/press/23
[ii] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” Washington DC. May 1, 2002, Appendix C, p.1-13. http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
[iii] JKM, “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” WPI – Transformations http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
[iv] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” Washington DC. May 1, 2002, Appendix C, p.1. http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
[v] Jones, Ferrer, Jenkins, Legge, Gourley, Ryan, Farnsworth, Grabbe, “Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction.” Journal of 9/11 Studies. January 19, 2008. http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

CA Answers gives this:

[i] Chemists who discovered unreacted incendiary (explosive) material in dust of ground zero:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBL… – Mark Basile -Chemical Engineer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lU-vu2Jv… – Niels Harrit – Chemist
[ii] MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xn…
[iii] Molten Metal And Extremely High Temperatures: Molten metal found at base of where building 7 stood, discussed by ground crew and firemen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNknITygr…
[iv] Building Experts Explain the Controlled Demolition of Building 7: go to the 2 minute 25 second mark in the clip. Even the firemen state in advance “keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down” at the 2 minute 44 second mark of the clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUdhdTXHc…
[v] Google search: “Kevin Ryan’s Top 10 Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites”
[vi] 911 – NIST : A New Standard of Deception – Kevin Ryan. (FULL) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oBggYfnt…
[vii] A complete compilation of documented interviews, videos and articles:
http://www.blissful-wisdom.com/my-though…

Conclusion?

1. NIST told porkies, either knowingly, needing to cover up their errors or else they plain didn’t know WTF they were on about.

2. From the computer models to the rummaging around in the dust to the eyewitnesses, the official reports don’t stack up.

3. If there was controlled demolition, which is overwhelmingly indicated, as you saw in the vids and the follow up quotes, then that has direct implications.

OK, let’s not draw any conclusions from that if you don’t feel like it but to what do you then ascribe THIS, which followed it?

9 comments for “WTC7 ten years after

  1. September 9, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    …but to what do you then ascribe THIS, which followed it?

    A mixture of stupidity and opportunism. Stupidity on the part of politicians, who reacted in a way typical of their kind by, to paraphrase Sir Humphrey Appleby, confusing activity with accomplishment and setting the scene for a decade of ill thought out knee jerk reactions. Opportunism on the part of people who saw dollar signs among the flocks of flapping pollies and ran to them promising easy, though invariably expensive, solutions. That both have proved venal and self serving in the years since doesn’t mean that either group had a hand in the event that began it. Vultures always turn up after the kill.

    • September 9, 2011 at 3:29 pm

      All that may be so but as you can see, particularly in the confrontation with them, NIST lied. They drew conclusions not based on the evidence, as specified above and couldn’t explain the anomalies.

      On any other issue but this one [because so much is riding on this one], this would mean the need for a retrial. On this one issue, people look away. Curious. On this one issue, people make up names to call people who question things.

      We are fiskers and debunkers. As bloggers, this is our stock in trade. On this issue, we suspend disbelief and take the official line. Curious.

      Pundits who are really dug in, i.e. no way was it as the experts say, the scientists, the demolition men, the firefighters, in fact most on the ground – these pundits continue their denials.

      This post does not say the government were involved, it does not say that anyone was involved. It says that there were very curious denials when, if all was as the official line said, there’d be no need for these.

      The word is definitely “curious”.

      • September 9, 2011 at 5:07 pm

        No need for denials? But almost before all the dust had settled there were people coming out and saying all sorts of things. Even the MSM was still speculating pretty wildly. Of course there was a need for denial, because much of what was being said before that day was even over was at best highly speculative and at worst complete bollocks.

        I’m not going into the specifics about NIST as I haven’t had time to watch the clips. However, I’m going to lay my cards out in advance and say that if this going to be two experts disagreeing that does not make one of them a liar, no matter how much whoever put up the third clip wishes to have found a lie. And as Longrider and I have repeated more than once anomalies in such an event are so very likely that not having any anomalies probably is an anomaly. Seriously, I’d find that a lot more suspicious, but even then I’d still be wondering what the hell it was all for and how on earth they expected to keep it quiet. I’ve heard a few motives (probably not all) but what actually happened was way OTT for any of them. A casus belli, for example – you’d easily have got that with just the planes so bringing down the towers on purpose was unnecessary. To me the most plausible sounding motive remains a bunch of religious headcases who’s only means of inflicting significant harm on the US was by means of psychological judo and getting it to harm itself – and incidentally I’d say that if so it achieved its aim.

        And how has it not leaked? In ten years not a peep, and real conspiracies usually seem to come out into the light in less time than that. Much silence would have to have been bought, but at the bare minimum dozens would have had to be involved and for some of the more complex theories we’re probably talking hundreds, possibly a few thousand. However many we’re talking about we need to multiply that number by another number with an awful lot of zeros and sticking a dollar sign on the front. If you needed to buy the silence of a thousand people with a billion dollars each that’s a round trillion – a small but significant fraction of the US GDP the previous year. That’s going to be noticed unless you also persuade them all not to spend it, and since money you can’t use may as well be money you don’t have that risks someone talking after all. Same thing applies if the money isn’t high enough, and even then you’re still gambling that someone doesn’t talk in their sleep. You’re no doubt more familiar with the theories than me – is there one in which the risks and costs come anywhere near the theoretical pay off, assuming rational conspirators?

        But despite all that let’s assume for the moment it was not what the official narrative maintains and that one of the conspiracy theories, doesn’t matter which one, is correct. So what? Really, what changes? There’s Buckley’s chance of ever proving it and so it doesn’t alter what’s gone on since one iota, whereas even if the official version happens to be a crock of shit we can still argue that the various illiberal policies that have been brought in as a response to it are stupid, ineffective, anti-freedom and evil.

        • September 9, 2011 at 8:25 pm

          before all the dust had settled there were people coming out and saying all sorts of things

          Yes they did and that’s what makes a big world. But what’s that got to do with these scientists and engineers? We’re talking two entirely different things. One is a whole lot of people with no expertise and do you see them mentioned anywhere in this post? The others are people with their head screwed on right.

          Equating the two is like saying, “Oh all you MSM and blogger types.” I’d be pretty offended by that. Or saying, “All you Muslims and Confucians – you’re all killers.”

          The problem is, in all the hype – and there has been much of it, and hysteria, there are some pretty sane people too saying, “Hey, there’s something which doesn’t click here.”

          That’s all this post was – showing those.

          • September 9, 2011 at 8:47 pm

            Not equating them as such. Just pointing out that there was a need for denial from the very outset and clearly that’s not going to have gone away. Then along comes someone who seizes on one of the inevitable anomalies and says ‘Aha’… and then says it again when someone denies its significance. I stress, not watched the NIST clip so I’m generalising at this stage.

            And the other three paras? Let me put it like this: if, in the late 90s or maybe in 2000, you were heading a conspiracy to do what we saw done on September 11th 2001 how would you go about it? How many people do you expect you would have had to involve? How could you assure yourself of their silence? How much do you expect that cost per person? Do you have a contingency plan for leaks? If so, what? What do you hope to achieve? Is it necessary to make a big hole in the Pentagon, bring down an entire New York city block, and crash four civil aircraft to do achieve that aim (optionally plus whatever the fourth aircraft was supposed to hit) or is it overkill? Bearing in mind that it’s natural to take the path of least resistance (or at least the path of least apparent resistance – I accept that people can commit to something that turns out to be more effort than alternatives) is there a simpler way? Is the reward for achieving whatever it is you expect from making a hole in the Pentagon and destroying a NY city block and four airliners, assuming that you are successful, sufficient to justify the risk of the plan leaking either before or after the event?

            And assuming you get away with it and some stupid politicians blame it on a man in a cave who they waste trillions and nine and a half years trying to kill, and in the meantime restrict my liberty for my own protection, does it really make a difference to my life whether you did it or whether it was the man in the cave?

            • September 10, 2011 at 6:25 am

              ” Let me put it like this: if, in the late 90s or maybe in 2000, you were heading a conspiracy to do what we saw done on September 11th 2001 how would you go about it? How many people do you expect you would have had to involve? How could you assure yourself of their silence? How much do you expect that cost per person? Do you have a contingency plan for leaks? If so, what? What do you hope to achieve? “

              This is the sticking point for me. How could any such conspiracy hope to work?

              It’s just not feasible.

  2. September 10, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    What we’re seeing here is people going about it wrongly, arse-end round – AE, Julia etc. This is not what I wrote at all. What I did was provide the scientific and engineering evidence that this was a controlled demolition on this building.

    Full stop.

    It’s other people who keep bringing in “conspiracy theory” strawmen and then debunking their own strawmen. I’m saying NIST lied. In fact, I’m not saying it – experts are saying it. I’m presenting it. Now, are you saying NIST did not lie? If so, we’re is your evidence? Mine is above.

    There’ve been so many peripheral words about everything except this isssue and I keep asking a straight question and not getting a straight answer.

    That’s the bottom line. And that question: “Do you accept, that on the baiss of the evidence above – all of it, not just three minutes of one of the vids – that NIST did not tell it the way it was about WTC7?” Second part – if you don’t accept it, give me the scientific reason why not.

    • September 11, 2011 at 6:46 am

      Unfortunately, James, if you do accept – on the basis of those videos – that they lied, then the next question is ‘Why did they do so?’.

      Now, there can be all sorts of reasons. But none of them lead anywhere anyone wants to go.

      • September 11, 2011 at 7:44 am

        Julia, you’ve hit the nail on the head. You know it, I know it, which is why, rather than fly off into joining dots, I’m not willing to do that now. I did it once but now I only want to go step by step. Establish X, move to Y. Establish Y or fail to and go to Z or just leave it alone if unsure.

        I’d posit that this is a very important issue, not about 911 per se but about our willingness to accept small pieces of evidence or not. For example, no one would have said Heath acted with any mal-intent in enthusiastically adopting the Club of Rome’s plan. In fact, only tinfoil hatters spoke of a Club of Rome and even today, not many know of it.

        Yet read the plan [see Edward Spalton etc.] and we know the plan was an EU all along, not just an EEC. You might say the analogy doesn’t hold. I say it does. It’s about a small group of researchers who did their homework and discovered what the CofR was really up to. Look how these researchers came to be called conspiracy theorists!

        Yet they stuck at it and soaked up abuse from the gruff “they’d never do this” brigade, while the MSM, naturally, ignored it all and as you know, most people only get their news from the MSM.

        Yet now it’s mainstream on the net and you can read about the CofR. And look at what the EU is doing now. Look at the latest – the stabilization fund. Look at Nigel on whom these people at the top actually are.

        I’m suggesting, with 911, that we leave our sceptical caps on and keep our fisking noses sharp. Go step by step, even where we don’t wish to go. When we run out of evidence [and you’d have to say there’s plenty on NIST], say on the planes, then there are two ways to go. One is conspiracy theorist, which I am not and so I stop, for want of available evidence. I’m “conspiracy suspicious”.

        The other is to theorize, which many see as a dirty word. I look at all the wild claims, e.g. there was no 911 at all and though I don’t believe that, it’s noted and placed on the table in a plastic bag, along with all the other things which have been said, inc the deniers’. Somewhere, on that table, is the truth.

        And isn’t it interesting that scientists and demolition experts, some of the earthiest people on earth, are being giving a label “Truther”, just because others are making wild speculation about other aspects? These people in the vids above are either all lying, Julia, in which case I ask why – for what purpose – or else what they are all uniformly saying – that there are serious anomalies here – holds some water.

        Either way, I’m not posting on this aspect again because it’s now been said and is there for people to read … or not.

        Today though, it’s just to remember the victims and their families.

Comments are closed.