From http://www.prisonplanet.com/nist-then-a-miracle-occurs.html
NIST: “Then a Miracle Occurs”
George Washington’s Blog
Friday, Aug 22, 2008
NIST’s explanation for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11th follows the logic in the cartoon above.
Specifically, NIST claims that the collapse of building 7 is “the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building”.
But then goes on to argue:
“The fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event”
In fact, the fires in WTC 7 were orders of magnitude less than other high-rise fires, which did not produce collapses.
My parody from yesterday is not much sillier than NIST’s real explanation.
_____________________________
Debunking NIST’s Conclusions about WTC 7: Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel
George Washington’s Blog
Friday, Aug 22, 2008
Symmetrical Collapse
NIST lamely tried to explain the symmetrically collapse as follows:
WTC 7’s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
NIST can’t have it both ways. If the exterior frame was so stiff and strong, then it should have stopped the collapse, or - at the very least - we would have seen a bowing effect where tremendous opposing forces were battling each other for dominance in determining the direction of the fall.
In real life, the thick structural beams and “stiff [and strong]” exterior frame used in the building should have quickly stopped any partial collapse, unless the support columns were all blown. At the very worst, we should see a 1 or 2 floor partial collapse.
NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than freefall speed. But it collapsed alot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn’t very impressive — that’s like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.
Again, why did the building collapse at all, given that the thick structural beams should have quickly stopped any partial collapse?
article continues below
NIST said fires alone brought down Building 7, but other office fires have burned longer and hotter without causing collapse.
No Explosive Sounds
NIST also said:
“No blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.”
Oh, really?
What about this, this, this, this, this and this?
Moreover, as discussed below, high-tech explosives don’t necessarily make the same loud “booms” that dynamite make.
And why were there residues for high-tech explosives at ground zero (and see this)?
And what about the pools of molten metal at ground zero for months? And why was the at and under the ground at the site of WTC 7 as hot as the ground under WTC 1 and 2?
And the New York Times wrote that partly EVAPORATED steel beams were found at WTC 7. But normal office and diesel fires are not NEARLY hot enough to evaporate steel. Hydrocarbon fires fueled by diesel (which was apparently stored at WTC 7) and normal office materials cannot evaporate steel. Steel does not evaporate unless it is heated to at least 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Everyone agrees that fires from conventional building fires are thousands of degrees cooler than that.
And why didn’t NIST address the obvious pre-knowledge by everyone around and well in advance that 7 was going to come down?
And why didn’t NIST address what these experts say?:
- The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. … I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.
- Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here).
- Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
“Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition”
- Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
“Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds… ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.”
- Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
“WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?”
- A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
- A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed “does not match the available facts” and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
________________________________
________________________________________
From http://www.prisonplanet.com/nist-wtc-7-report-shameful-embarrassing-and-completely-flawed.html
NIST WTC 7 Report: Shameful, Embarrassing And Completely Flawed
NIST Claims “New Phenomenon” Occurred For First Time Ever In Collapse Of WTC 7
Yet fails to address why ground zero workers and media outlets had prior knowledge of an “extraordinary event” never before observed an hour in advance, plus myriad of other ignored issues
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, August 22, 2008
In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7 that news outlets are reporting “puts 9/11 conspiracy theories to bed,” NIST claims that the never before observed “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that simply ignores eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that points to the deliberate demolition of the structure.
NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building’s collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”
If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
This on its own completely destroys the very foundation of NIST’s assertion that a “new phenomenon” was responsible for the collapse.
Which is the more likely scenario - that ground zero officials and media outlets got word that the building was going to be “pulled” - or that they employed clairvoyant powers of deduction that enabled them to foresee an event that had never happened before in history to a building that was structurally reinforced and had suffered limited fires?
NIST claims that the collapse of Building 7 is “The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building”.
We are actually being asked to believe the impossible - that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate.
The issue of molten metal, which was discovered under both the twin towers and WTC 7, suggesting an extremely hot burning agent was used in the demolition process, is completely ignored in NIST’s report, despite it being acknowledged in Appendix C of FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, which stated:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel… 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.
Speaking during a press conference that was called to counter NIST, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, dismissed the report.
“Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack,” said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused.”
“There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through,” he added, citing NIST’s claim that no evidence suggested loud explosive booms accompanied the collapse of the building by reminding that Thermite, a steel cutting agent, makes no explosive sound.
Even aside from this argument, there were numerous close proximity eyewitnesses who reported loud explosions, including NYPD officer Craig Bartmer and ground zero first responder Kevin McPadden (who also experienced the countdown before the building fell), but this fact was again simply ignored by NIST.
“FEMA found it,” said Gage. “Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers].”
The core of NIST’s explanation, that an “extraordinary event” called “thermal expansion” was to blame for the sudden total collapse of the building is of course on the face of it a fraud when one considers the innumerable number of buildings that have suffered roaring fires across the majority of their floors and remained standing, whereas WTC 7 suffered limited fire damage across a handful of floors.
NIST also claims that the building only fell at 40% free fall speed, as if this isn’t suspicious in itself. Remember that this 47-story behemoth took just 7 seconds to completely collapse within its own footprint falling through the path of most resistance.
As the George Washington blog points out, “NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than free fall speed. But it collapsed a lot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn’t very impressive — that’s like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.”
The George Washington blog has compiled a list of experts in structural engineering and demolition who have all questioned NIST’s conclusion. None of these individuals were approached by NIST to partake in their final report.
- The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. … I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.
- Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here).
- Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
“Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition”
- Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
“Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds… ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.”
- Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
“WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?”
- A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
- A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed “does not match the available facts” and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
To claim that the collapse of WTC 7 is “no longer a mystery,” as chief NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder stated yesterday smacks of a desperate attempt to proclaim the authority of the official story by mere words alone, when in reality NIST’s laughable “new phenomenon” claim, the latest in a long line of changing explanations for the obvious demolition of Building 7, only heaps more embarrassment on NIST and makes the official 9/11 story look more untrustworthy than ever before.
No comments:
Post a Comment