The NIST Report on World Trade Center 7: What Will It Reveal?

(this is just a draft -zbh)

First, the basics:

World Trade Building Seven was a 47 storey steel-framed highrise building that made up part of the New York skyline until September 11, 2001. In fact, on that terrible day, no passenger jet struck building 7. To be fair, WTC 7 was a good 350 feet from the North Tower, the closest of the Twin Towers. Nestled between the North Tower and building 7 were WTC 5 and 6. These were not tall buildings, probably no more than 30 storeys combined. They were pounded with falling debris from the destruction of the Twin Towers, and yet, at the end of the day, these two buildings, part of a circle of seven standing buildings surrounding the compact debris pile of WTC 7, proved to be stronger than the building that housed NY's Office of Emergency Management, the NY CIA station's offices, the Secret Services NY offices, the Securities and Exchange Commissions offices, and so on.

World Trade Building 7 fell to the earth at around 5:20 PM on 9/11. The characteristic failure of the buildings structural supports was fairly unusual; I will list some of them:

1. The Building 'Collapsed' Suddenly:
There was no partial collapse of the building indicating that the structure would fail.

2. The Building 'Collapsed' Symmetrically:
It fell straight down, perfectly even.

3. The Building 'Collapsed' Almost at Free-Fall Speed:
WTC 7 fell in 6.6 seconds.

4. The Building 'Collapse' Produced a Pyroclastic Flow:
Dust, smoke, and debris created an identical cloud to that produced by volcanoes.

5. The Building 'Collapse' Produced Molten Metal:
Sparse office fires were apparently responsible for melting structural steel.

However unusual they might have been on 9/11, these characteristics are common to buildings destroyed by controlled demolition, or the firing of explosives in a timed fashion to artfully bring a building into its basement. So being that WTC 7 walks like a duck, why is the controlled demolition of the building so convtroversial? Because the placing of explosives inside this building strongly indicates prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Since NIST would not acknowledge the possibility of explosives inside the North and South Towers, and only gave study to "the behavior of the towers up to the point of collapse", then we cannot expect them to consider this possibility for World Trade Center 7.

In fact, as Griffin postulates, the destruction of WTC 7 will most likely be attributed to fire and structural damage from falling debris. In photographic and videographic evidence, we can see that building 7 was indeed the victim of slight structural damage and random fires. However, as has been repeated ad nauseum for years now, no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed completely due to fire. This creates a unique problem for NIST, almost 6 years late now for its report on WTC 7, that we can assume hypothetical computer models will somehow solve for us.
The structural damage and intensity of the fires in building 7 is debatable. What do the witnesses say? Some have said that the building was completely engulfed in flames. Some have said that they heard explosions before and during building 7's collapse. NIST has produced an image that appears to show heavy damage to building 7's southwest corner. If this damage were even remotely enough to bring the building down, then the building would have fallen toward the wound, toward the path of least resistance. Instead, as videos show, the building fell straight down.

But lets entertain a theory that NIST will most likely use; that falling debris from the North Tower in addition to random fires caused the characteristics of collapse that we've identified. If this were true, that falling debris and fire could have brought building 7 into its basement (which is the goal of "a handful of demolition companies in the world"), then the question is wether any other buildings suffered the same fate on that day.

In fact, no other buildings shared in WTC 7's fate. To be sure, several nearby buildings were stabbed and cut and pounded by steel beams, some weighing 20-30 tons, such as the Marriot and Bankers Trust buildings. Or for an even better comparison, just look at World Trade buildings 5 and 6. These buildings stood their ground despite being closer to the North Tower than building 7, despite being hit with more debris. This brings us to the problem of distance, an important issue that we should look at.

The NIST report on the Twin Towers postulates the theory that impact damage from the passenger jets in addition to the ensuing fires was enough to weaken the steel in the World Trade Center and produce a gravity driven collapse.
The question then, is how could a fire-induced, gravity driven collapse propell 20-30 ton steel beams 350 feet away from the North Tower to cause enough damage to building 7 to produce a total, symmetrical, near free-fall collapse that produced a pryroclastic flow and molten metal? What was the mechanism for such propulsion? Will NIST's report on WTC 7 by default debunk their earlier work on the Twin Towers?

Only time will tell, and as John F Kennedy Jr stated, time is the enemy of all truth.

i dont see how they cant

i dont see how they cant debunk themselves on some level. it should be ridiculous. i expect an over-reliance on the "gigantic fuel tanks" though. ive never heard that JFK jr qoute before. he would sure know.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Walks like a duck.....

NIST report................Must be a turkey with a birth defect.