Response to NIST's NCSTAR 1-A Final Report On The Collapse Of World Trade Center Building 7 ..... 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?
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 6.5 seconds to completely collapse within its own footprint falling through the path of most resistance.
Loading...
6:17
WTC 7 Before Collapseby AlienEntity1243,753 views
@Earthlinked WTC7 fell onto Fiterman hall which later had to be demolished from the damaged. Can you explain why the east penthouse collapsed before the rest of the building?
soulinite 2 months ago
@soulinite WRONG!!!! IT did fall into it's own footprint - watch the film!!!!!!!!!! And of course some of the debris was spread aross the streets and hit other buildings!!! I am NOT saying that htere was not other damage - I am saying that WTC7 - fell into it's own base - period - and that fact is not deniable - PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!! Watch the film - if falls straight down - not to the side!!!!!!!!
Earthlinked 3 months ago
@911InvestigationVids You have to time WTC7's collapse from the collapse of the east penthouse.
soulinite 3 months ago
@Earthlinked WTC7 did not fall into it's own footprint.It damaged many of the buildings around it when it fell.
soulinite 3 months ago
@tybrady64 WTC 7 was at least 5 times over engineered, by the most conservative estimate. Steel maintains its full molecular box centered crystal structure until a phase change setpoint at 1330, losing less than 10% strength through expansion and torsion. The fires in WTC 7 were isolated and VERY poorly combusted, as confirmed by the high smoke to no visible diffuse flame at the oxy rich perimeter. WTC 7 fell 570 feet in under 6.5 seconds, impossible for a fire induced mechanical collapse
911InvestigationVids 5 months ago
@tybrady64 Yes we are - and this building had no reason to collapse - expecially to collapse within it's own footprint!!!!!! For this to happen MANY of the steel columns had to collapse a the same time - and the ods are a bazillion to none! I have no answers for Building 7 - and neither did anyone else. The only possible answer was that between the twin towers and Building 7 - the lease that was rescently signed for 99 years - was a terrible money looser!!!!! That brings up many questions!!
Earthlinked 5 months ago
@tybrady64 You simply don't understand. As the exterior wall of the building is not load bearing, it cannot support itself, for any length of time. When the load bearing members inside the building failed the exterior facade would collapse at the same instant. Your collapse scenario is not possible. Your bridge in question is not a high rise steel framed building, you're comparing apples and oranges. And I never mentioned the government except to state that NIST NCSTAR1-9 is a fraud.
Gruelmeister 5 months ago
@Gruelmeister Thanks for making my point. I never said the outside wall was load bearing. I'll say it again, you can see the penthouse fall a full eight seconds before the outside shell fall. The interior of the building was falling inside of itself before the outside wall fell. As far as buildings falling from fire, there is a first for everything. What about the highway bridge in California that fell because of a fire in April 2007? That was steel too. Or did the government do that too?
tybrady64 5 months ago
@Earthlinked We're talking about WTC7, for this building the main load bearing columns were on the inside. Plus it is not just the columns, the horizontal floor joists carry a heavy load too. I'll say it one more time. The steel does not have to melt. At 1,000 degrees the steel does not have the same load carrying abilities, it is a fact that it looses a lot of its strength. This is starting to go in circles, fun chatting, I'm out of here.
tybrady64 5 months ago
@tybrady64 ou forget that teh load bearing steel was on the OUTSIDE of the building - NOT MUCH on the inside!!!! This was a new new building method in the 1970's to have more floor space - NOT taken up by columns of steel INSIDE the building!!!! And you are WRONG - steel MELTS (begins to bend) at 2500F - and the WTC fires never got that hot!!!!!!!
Earthlinked 5 months ago