Support 911Blogger

NIST: "We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse"

On April 11th, 2007, family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice filed a petition with NIST demanding that it correct its erroneous methods and findings.

On September 27th, NIST finally replied.

While the reply is mainly bogus, and the filers of the petition intend to appeal the decision of NIST not to correct the many fatal errors in its reports, attorney James Gourley (who drafted the petition) has pointed out one interesting statement. Specifically, NIST says in its reply:

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

Well, yes! That's exactly the point the petitioners are trying to make. No modern steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed before or after 9/11 due to fire other than at WTC 1, 2 and 7, even though other fires have burned longer and hotter. And even if they somehow did start to collapse, the collapse would not have occurred at virtual free-fall speeds while creating enormous dust clouds right from the start.

So yes . . . NIST will forever be "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" unless it stops covering up the evidence that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition.

Link issu

There are several link issues in this post.

"NIST finally replied" does not work as the links to the *.pdf's listed.

Can you fix them?

Okay, thanks to, I've got it


Here's My Suggestion

How about get rid of the pound sign and all the spaces in the file-name. So instead of:

NIST#07-06 Signed Distribution Letter.pdf

Make it like so:


Hopefully it will work then.

"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," June 1, 2006


Do we have to grow old before we begin to see stories like this on the front page of every American newspaper?

We need to stop referring to

We need to stop referring to the "collapses" of the 3 buildings as collapses. As David Ray Griffin pointed out in Debunking 9/11 Debunking, the buildings did NOT collapse, they *disintegrated*.

The buildings exploded!

The buildings exploded!

They turned to

They turned to dust

Please watch my movie: The Third Tower

Turned to dust

I recommend:

Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence

"We know from bulk dust sample studies that most of the dust which was collected on the ground was of the very coarse variety."

"The steel simply fell to the ground in large pieces during the collapse. More than 50% of the debris generated from the collapse of the towers was located in the 6 sublevels directly beneath the towers as revealed by photographs of debris removal and corroborated by damage assessment schematics produced by the Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers. The expected amount of steel removed from GZ is affirmed by the reported minimum of 350,000 tons of steel removed from GZ to landfills and recycle centers as well as the total number of truck loads (over 100,000) and barges (over 1900) which transported 1.6 million tons of material, from GZ."

I didn't mean that

I didn't mean that literally, take it easy.

Please watch my movie: The Third Tower

sounded like a derailed

sounded like a derailed freight train, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom!

The noise associated with an implosion

Gunfire and three big explosions

Please watch my movie: The Third Tower

Pulverized, Crumbled, Disintegrated, Exploded

are accurate. The words "pancake" and "collapse" are deliberately misleading disinformation; terms repeated by the media puppets and the criminals.


Beyond these words

I agree with pulverized, etc. The other problem with how the public or media view the WTC disintegration is that the blue prints released right after 9/11 were intentionally inaccurate. I just had a discussion with two very intelligent people, one who worked at the WTC, but was not there at the event. They both were under the impression that the building was unlike any other skyscraper - were not aware of the core columns hidden from view in the elevator shafts. The public is still in the dark about the building structure and what is or is not possible to cause the crumbling. They still think it's possible a plane could cause damage. To my knowledge no newspaper printed the corrected blue prints. Truthers forget there's no real information before the public.

"they disintegrated"

yes, true, TruthNow, the building structures and their contents were pulverized...

Pulverized insinuates being

Pulverized insinuates being hammered to bits and dust. Hammering is too closely associated with the pancake collapse, each floor hammering the one below. No to "pulverized." The colossal and fortified buildings exploded and were reduced to dust.

Good point -- you're right.

pul·ver·ize /ˈpʌlvəˌraɪz/ Pronunciation Key - [puhl-vuh-rahyz]
1. to reduce to dust or powder, as by pounding or grinding.
2. to demolish or crush completely.



"The World Trace Center Demolition"

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.


This seals the deal when it comes to proving controlled demolition:

The main talking point the debunkers use is.... "a big plane hit the building, and then a big fire broke out, and the fireproofing was dislodged, so the steel weakened and the buildings fell down."

NIST does not agree with the debunkers talking points!

yeah they do, and

when you say to them "Ok, lets assume all of that is true, how do you explain this 'collapse' occurring at the rate of freefall?"

they can't answer, EVER.
freefall trumps all
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

I suggest...

Everyone read the full document. So as to be familiar with it.

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

Instant Classic

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

I'd say that's a pretty f'n big


Another telling phrase

"NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue and as noted above, such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive."

Not necessarily have been conclusive?

What kind of language is that for a scientific body? Do scientists only conduct tests when the results are certain?

(No subject)


The sentence before that reads:

"Finally, NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings."

So they say this, then they admit that they did not, in FACT, even test for 'explosive residue'.

Therefore, OF COURSE they didn't find any evidence of explosives, they DIDN'T TEST FOR THEM.

Can this video please be put

Can this video please be put on the front page, because as far as I'm concerned I don't think it ever has, and it deserves to be. I know for a FACT that Youtube and Googlevideo have been editing the view count for this video.

NIST engineer, John Gross, denies the existance of Molten Steel

Great Clip

I agree.
That's a great vid - does seem a bit weird it's still under 1000 clicks. I saw it long ago.
Should be called ' NIST Snake Oil Salesman'
(At least he looked a bit stressed out. Reality's a bitch.)


This one has over 13,000 views

NIST Engineer, John Gross, Denies Reports About Molten Steel at the WTC

Not sure if the count has been messed with, though.

NIST: "We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse"

20 million in taxpayer dollars for THAT?!?!

I want my money back!!

"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

When was this?

I can't tell from here (and from the location on YouTube) when John Gross gave this talk. (Though it's mentioned that it was in Texas.)

Does anybody know when? I ask because I wonder if it was before so much contradicting evidence had been collected and disseminated. For him to make such public remarks in the last year or two makes him look patently mendacious.

John Gross' NIST talk was a year ago on 10/18/06...

Long after "contradicting evidence had been collected and disseminated".

More info here:

And for posterity's sake: below is a list of some of the numerous reports concerning the molten steel/metal at Ground Zero:

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.

"These reports came from two men involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.
Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.
Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”
The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7 [...]"

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).

Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."

The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
LINK (pdf)

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."

A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",

even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001

and again on September 21, 2001,

and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands,

and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."

Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

Most all 9/11 researchers have no funding whatsoever, and could easily find the numerous reports of molten steel reported at Ground Zero using their computer and a search engine. The NIST was funded 20 million for their investigation and couldn't find ONE report about the molten steel (according to John Gross)???

Once again, here are the words of John Gross, one of the NIST's lead engineers, denying there were reports of molten steel...

Dr. Frank Greening, a scientist who has recently become very critical of the NIST report, has gone on record several times to say that he believes molten steel was present at Ground Zero:

"There is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2"
"I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed."
"The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes... Iron spheres in the 30 micron to 1 micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses."
"...some steel appears to have melted in the WTC prior to the collapse of the buildings."
"Iron spherules and elevated levels of airborne ZINC prove there was molten iron/steel in the WTC."
"This implies that some iron or steel in the twin towers was exposed to temperatures ABOVE 1539 deg C. Such temperatures are much too high for hydrocarbon fires in the twin towers according to NIST's own studies."
"I would say that the presence of molten iron in the WTC is inconsistent with the NIST Report’s conclusion that temperatures in the towers during 9/11 were well below the melting point of iron or steel."
"NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed!"
"How did the fires in the rubble pile melt steel?"

-Dr. Frank Greening, originally posted at March/April 2007 as forum member "NEU-FONZE", and as "Apollo20" at, April 2007

Frank Greening's Bio:

Here are just some of Dr. Greening's remarks and criticisms concerning the NIST investigation into why the WTC fell down on 9/11/01:

"I have a personal e-mail FROM A VERY RESPECTED PROFFESOR OF ENGINEERING at an AMERICAN UNIVERSITY in which he notes that his attempts to publish his research into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in US and British journals has been blocked.
This means work disputing NIST's findings is nowhere to be found because it is simply being censored by over-cautious editors!"

-Dr. Frank Greeing, posted at as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 91

"NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory"

-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 92

"The truth about 9/11 is too important to declare the matter closed just because NIST have written a book or two on it.
NIST themselves call their version of the truth an HYPOTHESIS. Does that preclude the consideration of other hypotheses?
Is it the NIST apologists' plan to keep up the nay-saying until they silence any dissenting voices and declare: "CASE CLOSED!"
Well, sorry to tell you, it won't work!"

-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg.102

"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening


Thanks. That's a trove of information.

we really need a

"golden comments" section for text that deserves it's own blog post. Thanks.
More molten metal quotes:

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.

Thanks buddy

I've bookmarked your link. You really did a great job with that article. Please create a blog for it here (if you have time) to help get it the attention it deserves. And/or if you get a chance, you should email your article out to some websites like infowars and other 9-11 related / alternative news sites.


(The only thing I would maybe add on to it would be to write in a blurb about John Gross claiming that he hasn't seen any reports of the molten steel, below the video you posted, in case the reader doesn't take the time to watch the vid. But still, a great freaking article with or with out it!)

"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

Didn't Mayor Bloomberg Say ...

That it is not neccesary to physically inspect the collapse debris in this age of computer simulations?

And if they cannot explain WTC 7, then they and others have no right to call us crazy.

And if WTC 7 (a highly secured government structure) was imploded, then it and the towers must have been destroyed via inside job.

Again with the sagging floors. . . .

Anybody cringe when they read the sentence "Visual data of the WTC towers confirmed significant floor sagging at several locations in the Towers".

Every debunker I know, from that Right Wing puppet Elizabeth Hasselbeck to Bill O'Reilly quotes this line of crap, BUT HAS ANYBODY EVERY SEEN A PHOTO OF WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT? A SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS THEREOF? ANYTHING AT ALL?

Saying "it is so because I say so" is not the same as proving it. If we Truthers had an argument that weak, it would have been torn to shreds long ago.


"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

sagging floors

and how many seconds for floors, 110 of them, to sag?

very rapid sagging, I guess . . .

apparently, kate, the 110 floors sagged at near free fall speed. Quite an outbreak of sagging, wouldn't you say?

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry


Does VRS (Very Rapid Sagging) also apply to the Constitution?

not science

They will try to find a limited hangout to explain B7 -- they admit they are looking into "blast scenarios," but those will be "accidental." You have wonder how they will manage it..

The responses are Orwellian and the entire basis is unscientific because no one can replicate the results without access to hidden data.

What's key is exposing increasing numbers of people who can understand the reports to these types of Orwellian aspects as the responses to the RfC.

"Your letter fUrther asserts

"Your letter fUrther asserts that NIST failed to take into account interviews of emergency personnel
that suggested the presence of bombs in the towers. NIST reviewed all of the interviews conducted
by the FDNY of firefighters (500 interviews)
and in addition conducted its own set of interviews
with emergency responders and building occupants. Taken as a whole, the interviews did not
support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC Towers.
-- page 4 para. 3

So It seems that they have some metric to determine how many reports of explosions qualifies as playing a role? So it must be some number below 100% of the interviews?

"NIST has reviewed the full body of firefighter
interviews and conducted its own interviews of first responders and building occupants and taken as
a whole, these first person accounts do not support the assertion of blasts occurring below the impact
-- page 3 para. 4

Again this mysterious metric.
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month


for NIST, 118 firefighters testifying to various explosions in the World Trade Center doesn't mean jack.

The entire letter is phrased in lawyerese bullshit. The phrase "Taken as a whole" in the sentence you quote basically covers their asses, because they can say "Well, sure, there's a bunch of talk about secondary explosions, but we didn't feel the interviews AS A WHOLE supported that conclusion." That way, they don't have to justify any individual claims.

New York Times, December 25, 2001:

"Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall," New York Times, December 25, 2001:

"In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.
"Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three-day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation.
"'The city considered it reasonable to have recovered structural steel recycled,' said Matthew G. Monahan, a spokesman for the city's Department of Design and Construction, which is in charge of debris removal at the site."

[read full article here]

Weasel words

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" may seem a satisfying concession to many, but it sounds like weasel words to me.

The implication of those words is that the misnamed collapses have been largely explained -- and that by extension NIST critics are tiresome badgerers.

To the contrary, NIST fails to provide any explanation of the total collapses. Its reports have lots of filler designed to con readers into thinking that it has some explanation. This is just misdirection. Nowhere does NIST show -- even unconvincingly -- how the buildings could've totally collapsed.

(It's as though someone tried to explain the anihilation of Hiroshima by saying, well, some church had big cracks in its foundation, and then elsewhere was some family which hazardously stored too many firecrackers in a crate. Technically these might be considered contributions to the destruction, but they'd grossly fail to explain the overall devastation of Hiroshima.)

NIST isn't expected to nail every picayune detail of the collapses. What it was supposed to do was uncover and substantiate the best overall explanation of them that human minds have conceived. Instead it miserably failed to do any of that, all the while deliberately excluding from serious consideration any explanation contradicting the important earlier claims of the Bush administration.

The Buildings Sagging Before Collapse Meme

is also curiously placed in this recent NYFD video featured on C&L yesterday that discusses Guiliani's corrupt practises around the NYPD and NYFD Emergency radio system . The relevant part is at 04:00

Edit:This post was meant to be in reply to "craniacs" comment on the supposed sagging of the buildings before they were gutted.


When is the NIST going to publish that statement publicly? I would like to see FOX news eat that statement.

The original Request for

The original Request for Correction and NIST's Response are both published at the Department of Commerce website here:

You will also notice the space beam and no plane Request for Corrections by Wood and Reynolds published there as well. Oh, and you will see the "Request for Correction" by Ed Haas that is in reality a request for NIST to halt its Building 7 investigation. It seems they did a pretty good job of muddying the waters with a bunch of B.S., no? Like GW says, though, we've just got to outcompete them.

NIST's response to Haas shows what to expect

NIST's response to Ed's Request for Correction provides important cues as to what its analysis will likely show:

"In the case of WTC 7, the progression of failure from the initiation along the east side of the building is well understood, and NIST has reported on the collapse progression[...] What is not well understood is the initiating event that led to the collapse. NIST is studying the fire scenarios and hypothetical blast scenarios may have initiated a failure along the east side of the core of WTC 7. To be considered by NIST and its contractors, the hypothetical blast scenarios being studied must conform to the observable evidence, such as lack of broken windows in the area where the collapse initiated and a lack of witness accounts of audible blasts at the time the building collapse initiates. Further, the consideration of blast scenarios does not presuppose that such an event was deliberate (e.g., controlled demolition). The collapse of WTC 7 in and of itself does not present evidence of a controlled demolition event. The consideration of hypothetical blast scenarios is intended to determine whether a blast of a magnitude sufficient to sever a column could have occurred within the parameters defined by the visual and eyewitness evidence available."

So, it is likely that (as in the case of the Twin Towers) NIST will concentrate on theorizing about events leading up to "collapse initiation" and summarily explain the total collapse as some kind of a house of cards type progression event. It will ignore "earwitnesses" like Craig Bartmer and the first responder who heard a sound "like a clap of thunder" before the building started to collapse. It will not analyze the implications of the almost free fall speed of the collapse, the partly vaporized steel analyzed by FEMA, reports of molten metal, or the energy requirements of the total collapse.

As regards delays caused by the Requirements of Correction, I've always thought that every additional year that their WTC 7 report is postponed is a kind of victory for truthers. :-)

Sorry, luv, you're on your own with this one...



ADX Florence