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.
Freefall Speed
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?
Fires Knocked Down Steel-Frame Buildings
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?
High-Tech Explosive Residues
And why were there residues for high-tech explosives at ground zero (and see this)?
Molten and Partially Evaporated Steel
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.
Pre-Knowledge
And why didn't NIST address the obvious pre-knowledge by everyone around and well in advance that 7 was going to come down?
Experts
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
Yesterday’s release of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) report on the collapse of WTC7 seems to have been carefully coordinated with the mainstream media in an all-out propaganda effort to debunk so-called conspiracy theories that insist that WTC7 collapsed after being rigged with demolition charges which would infer that, due to time constraints, could only have been placed in the building before 9/11.
Few, however, find the new ‘evidence’ proffered by NIST of the building collapsing because of the failure of a beam due to thermal expansion very compelling; indeed, some, if one cares to read through The New York Times comments pages that followed their reporting of the reports release, are now more convinced than ever that the governments version of events are lies.
All of the existing evidence, including the now much seen video footage, shows quite clearly the building collapsing uniformly and spontaneously whereas the NIST report requires us to believe that, rather than there being a simultaneous failure of the structural elements supporting the building which would have resulted in the uniform and spontaneous collapse shown, the building collapsed after the sequential failure of the various structural elements. Had this been the case then the building would not have collapsed uniformly as the various videos clearly show it did.
As an aside, the release of the report has also exposed the mainstream media’s complicity in pushing what will now become the official government line on the collapse of WTC7.
First, let’s have a closer look at how the NYT covered the release of the report. On the surface the NYT take on the reports findings seems quite objective. The author of the NYT article, Eric Lipton, uses subtly negative phraseology to give the impression that the report should finally debunk the alternative explanations as to the buildings collapse. For example, he says in the very first paragraph: “Fires in the 47-story office tower at the edge of the World Trade Center site undermined floor beams and a critical structural column, federal investigators concluded on Thursday, as they attempted to curb still-rampant speculation that explosives caused the building’s collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.” The words: “curb still rampant speculation” are used to reinforce the notion that the NIST report reduces those other explanations to mere speculation when, in reality, the NIST reports findings, in the light of the compelling evidence shown in the videos, is actually even more speculative.
Lipton then immediately goes on to say: “No one died when the tower, 7 World Trade Center, tumbled…” Tumbled? The building didn’t ‘tumble’; it collapsed linearly into it own footprint. Lipton also uses the term ‘conspiracy theorists’, a term which since 9/11, the mainstream media has managed to ensure has morphed into a derogatory label. He writes: “What started as a small number of such conspiracy theorists ballooned into a movement of sorts, largely fed by Internet sites and homemade videos.” This is a very patronising piece of criticism from a mainstream media stalwart, the NYT, to the flourishing blogosphere without which we’d have had even less knowledge about events than if we had to rely on the mainstream media.
Another mainstream media online newspaper, The Age of Melbourne, Australia, was less subtle about its anti-conspiracy theorist propaganda. Its headline blared; “9/11 collapse mystery solved: scientists”. Then, right below the opening paragraph, there is a photograph, not of WTC7, but of the second airliner about to hit the second tower of the main WTC with the caption underneath it reading: “The truth about 'conspiracies'. Millions believe the 9/11 attacks were faked, thousands say they've seen UFOs and an army of hunters are after Bigfoot but professional sceptic Dr Michael Shermer has news for all 'believers'.”
The Age report quite unsubtley links and equates those that enquire about explanations of the events of 9/11 other than those given by the government with UFO and Bigfoot believers with the wording even implying that UFOs were seen in Manhattan on 9/11! This particular mainstream propaganda piece was topped of with this: "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonour the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," from Larry Silverstein spokeswoman Dara McQuillan.
The problem, at least from the government’s point of view, is that the NIST report, far from debunking the so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’ alternative explanations for the events of 9/11, have actually strengthened peoples view about the government lying about the events of 9/11 and, in the process, by bringing it all out into the mainstream media as they have, will now gain more converts to the idea that the governments version of events is a cover-up.
--MORE--"
That's what they have done all right!
