August 23, 2008

NIST Concludes "Fire" Caused WTC 7 “Collapse” when FEMA Report Concluded Fuel Tank Explosion had "low probability” of Knocking Down Tower

NIST Concludes "Fire" Caused WTC 7 “Collapse” when FEMA Report Concluded Fuel Tank Explosion had "low probability” of Knocking Down Tower

NIST claims "fire" had better chance of knocking down tower than planted explosives in bizarre response to interview question

By Arabesque

NIST has finally released their final report into the collapse of Building 7, which collapsed inexplicably on 9/11. The New York Times quoted Sunder who said, "[The] reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery... It did not collapse from explosives or fuel oil fires.” Earlier, Sunder was scratching his head, saying, "We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." Similarly, the collapse baffled FEMA who lamely concluded, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” In other words, despite the fact that FEMA claimed a diesel fuel explosion would have been improbable, NIST is now asserting that mere "fires" knocked down WTC 7? As NIST admits, this would be the "first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building." A 9/11 blogger named Buru Dragon comments on NIST's press conference saying:

[A] reporter appeared to temporarily stump Sunder with a very basic but perfect question. Throughout the presentation Sunder spoke about building seven as if it were particularly susceptible to collapse by even moderate fires because of the design. However Sunder would later go on to explain that it would require a very large amount of explosives to bring it down by demolition... "if the buildings were so vulnerable to collapse due to regular fires alone, wouldn’t they also be equally vulnerable to failure with just a small number of explosives?" Sunder... proceeded to stumble through some convoluted explanation for why only fire could be responsible... [seeming] caught off guard and uncomfortable.

If this wasn't bizarre enough, NIST took 7 years to reach this conclusion. Jim Hoffman commented in response to FEMA's original report:

People who have seen buildings implode in controlled demolitions are unlikely to be as challenged as FEMA's team in understanding the cause of Building 7's collapse. They will notice, upon watching the videos, that Building 7's collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled demolition.

Because of this, many are openly disputing NIST's explanation. Raw Story explains that "As federal agency declares 'new phenomenon' downed WTC 7, activists cry foul":

Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, doesn't believe a word of the theory. His group, which has swelled to over 400 architectural and engineering professionals, immediately responded to the Institute's claim in a press conference.... "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," Gage added during the press conference. His group asserts that thermite, a steel cutting agent, was used to bring the building down.

The press conference by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is available on their website. In an article entitled, Conspiracy theorists 'not swayed' by WTC7 explanation, Raw Story also quotes Richard Gage who explains that molten metal was ignored by the NIST report:

FEMA found [molten metal]... 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].

Jim Hoffman's website 9/11 research addresses this phenomenon of molten steel mentioned in the FEMA report (but completely ignored and omitted in the new NIST report), writing:

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused 'intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.' The New York Times described this as 'perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.'

In response to NIST's report on Building 7, 9/11 blogger George Washington pokes fun at their explanation saying:

NIST has solved the mystery of WTC 7, explaining that a brand "new phenomenon" was discovered, namely, that "thermal expansion"... NIST also discovered another new phenomenon it calls "fire". (NIST explained that fire is hot)... which led to the "thermal expansion".

How impressive could this "thermal expansion" be to explain the collapse of WTC 7? We can only turn to NIST who explain helpfully, "At any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed." To put this in perspective, WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20 p.m., many hours after the fires were started. The collapse was not entirely a surprise apparently, as some news organizations were reporting it collapsing before it collapsed.

Quoting expert opinions and contradictions in NIST's explanation, George Washington also writes

NIST said fires alone brought down Building 7, but other office fires have burned longer and hotter without causing collapse... NIST [said]: 'No blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.'... What about this, this, this, this, this and this?... why were there residues for high-tech explosives at ground zero (and see this)?... 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? why didn't NIST address the obvious pre-knowledge (and see this) by everyone around and well in advance that 7 was going to come down?

John Doraemi describes the NIST report as being written in "bad faith":

With the release of the NIST final report on Building 7 we can safely say that the government remains committed to the ongoing cover-up, and that crucial evidence was simply ignored... Most relevant to the WTC7 building investigation is that all of the steel [which they now attempt to use computers to simulate...] was disappeared from history, and melted down in Asia -- ILLEGALLY -- and without any justification whatsoever. Bad Faith is that NIST deliberately misled the public by claiming that "140 decibel" explosives would have been required to take out support columns, knowing full well that evidence of incendiary material (thermate) was found, which produces no such noise.

How indeed could a building be more likely to collapse from small offices fires than from pre-planted explosives? Further to this observation, the New York Times, quoting WTC 7 building owner Larry Silverstein explained that like most modern structures, WTC 7 was reinforced to survive structural damage: "We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity."

Barry Jennings, who was in WTC 7 on 9/11, claimed that he was stuck inside of the building after a massive explosion and that firefighters tried to get him out of the building before either of the twin towers collapsed.

Responses from other 9/11 researchers should be expected in the coming days.