Support 911Blogger


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

digg_url="http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/wtc-7-report-response-round-up.html";

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.

Great analysis. One clarification

"In other words, despite the fact that FEMA claimed a diesel fuel explosion would have been improbable"

I think FEMA meant that the diesel could have provided the *propellant* necessary to make the fires more intense, as also noted here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/World-Trade-Center-7-and-t-by-William-H...

That is, they didn't mean a diesel fuel *explosion*.

With respect, I agree with

With respect, I agree with Vesa. This is a very good essay with a slightly off opening and title. You could fix it in a few minutes and have the best overview of the NIST report to date.
________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

Additional considerations

The absurdity of the NIST report provokes rebuttals. However, rebuttals should be carefully screened for any counterproductive formulations, so as not to make the work of "debunkers" easier.

In my opinion, one unfruitful avenue is to *start* a rebuttal by arguing that WTC 7 would not have collapsed from fires the way it did. One should begin by questioning the premise that normal office fires burning out in any given location in about 20 minutes would have the time and energy to heat up fireproofed, isolated steel members so that any significant expansion could take place.

The Fema report debunks NIST

If liquefied steel isn't the same thing as steel that has melted then what is it? NIST says steel didn't melt. The FEMA report not only admits it did they had samples of WTC steel from BLD 7 and pictures of it...from the FEMA report...

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

"Summary for Sample 1

1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that >>>>>>>>>liquefied<<<<<<<<< the steel.

3.The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel. "

AND what was sample 1 from?

"C.2 Sample 1 >>>>>>>>(From WTC 7)<<<<<<
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular >>>>>>>melting,<<<<<<<< was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.............The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for >>>>>>>melting<<<<<<<<< this steel."
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

They seem to be describing the effects of thermate.

Steel melted at WTC 7. FEMA admits it and it's public record. Explain that NIST.

Yes but...

... to my knowledge FEMA does not suggest that there were explosions of diesel tanks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the formulation needs to be changed.

It can be read either way

Actually I think it was popular mechanics that came up wth the idea that the diesel fuel could feed the fire...this is what FEMA said....

"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. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. "
http://www.wtc7.net/femareport.html

"massive potential energy" could be taken as an explosive event.

But it is dangerous to state that...

... FEMA talked about diesel fuel EXPLODING. Perhaps FEMA's formulations could be interpreted that way (I never did), but I don't think it is legitimate to suggest that they MEANT an explosion.

You are right in that

NIST never as far as we know considered that but as I showed
FEMA called it "massive potential energy" however when popular mechanics jumped in they had NIST tell them things like this...

"Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

I understand what you are saying as this is what NIST was treating it as. I read FEMA as thinking potential explosion. They were both wrong anyway.....and this is more known than the FEMA report. So I see what you are saying.

So NIST was going to blame fire all along(just as the twin towers) and needed a way to do it. The fuel tanks was going to be it, but it was impossible because of their location...hence the first ever collapse due to "thermal expansion". Notice how they pretend the FEMA report doesn't exist.

Why would there be diesel fuel having "massive potential energy"

inside an office building in Manhattan? Sounds extremely dangerous & absurd.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

"massive potential energy"

"I think FEMA meant that the diesel could have provided the *propellant* necessary to make the fires more intense"

When FEMA said: "Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy" they are not talking about an explosion? It sounds pretty bizarre that they only meant it could add fuel to the fire. I guess those damn sprinklers--man, if only they were working properly! I will correct this if I am mistaken, but my understanding was that FEMA claimed a fuel tank explosion was their best hypothesis.

I have heard the "explosion" theory from somewhere. Where does it originate?

I'll read the link.

"One salient feature of the report dispels the myth that the diesel fuel, stored in WTC 7, for back-up power generators, provided the propellant necessary to make the fires more intense."

I'll read the original FEMA source and see if I can get more confirmation. It's rather vauge, but it does not specify anything hinting "explosion"
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
page 31

The FEMA report is not clear on this issue.

I'd like to know where the "explosion" theory originated. The FEMA report does not explicitly say their: "theory does not exclude the possibility of an explosion". I'll keep looking into this.

"It would not be surprising, of course, if the fires in this building were even smaller than those in the towers, because there was no jet fuel to get a big fire started. Some defenders of the official story have claimed, to be sure, that the diesel fuel stored in this building somehow caught fire and created a towering inferno. But if building 7 had become engulfed in flames, why did none of the many photographers and TV camera crews on the scene capture this sight?

The extreme difficulty of explaining the collapse of building 7—-assuming that it is not permissible to mention controlled demolition---has been recognized by the official bodies. The report prepared under FEMA’s supervision came up with a scenario employing the diesel fuel, then admitted that this scenario had “only a low probability of occurrence." Even that statement is generous, because the probability that some version of the official story of building 7 is true is the same as it is for the towers, essentially zero, because it would violate several laws of physics. In any case, the 9/11 Commission, perhaps because of this admission by FEMA, avoided the problem by simply not even mentioning the fact that this building collapsed. "
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Massive amount

"When FEMA said: 'Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy' they are not talking about an explosion?"

I never read it as referring to an explosion. I have just read it as meaning that there were massive amounts of diesel fuel that could burn, thereby contributing to the collapse (in FEMA's view).

I don't know who to attribute the diesel explosion theory to.

Besides, does diesel fuel explode or just burst into flames when it reaches ignition temperature?

exactly my "explosive" question

"Besides, does diesel fuel explode or just burst into flames when it reaches ignition temperature?"

exactly my "explosive" question. "Massive potential energy" = "massive fuel source" just does not sound like what is being inferred to me.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Well

I have always interpreted the "massive potential energy" in that context as referring to the potential energy that would be released if a massive amount of fuel caught fire.

I know this is a really long shot, but

does anyone think the fact that NIST stated overtly that, according to their theory of WTC7, this is the first time such a phenomenon has occurred is some kind of coded way of NIST admitting it is improbable?

I think we know they feel they can't tell the truth. But maybe this is their way of implicitly admitting their stuff is bs?

I know, it's a long shot. But I find it weird they would foreground the fact that their theory for WTC7 has NO PRECEDENT. In scientific terms, that's not a very stable foundation for a theory.

I agree

It occurred to me, also, that they may be creating a report that is begging for examination and refutation so that it WILL be refuted. These are all intelligent and well educated professionals and they acknowledge that the use of explosives is the preferred theory by many who are watching. Either they are extremely well paid for this lack of scientific rigor or they are prohibited from presenting a critical analysis and hope that by making it such an obvious fraud that they can inflame the public into demanding a serious investigation.

At least we can hope....

The same thought occurred to me

I can't believe everyone involved in this study could be involved in a conspiracy, but they may be under severe pressure to only consider fire.

There could be a chance that this is a couched way to call on those who can do something about it.

Why NIST didn't seriously consider thermite/thermate?

I have read - can't remember where - possibly Wayne Madsen's blog - that the preponderance of expertise regarding use & properties of thermite/thermate in the country was sitting on ... guess what ... the NIST panel that prepared the 'final' report on WTC7. implication is obvious.

Problem for Larry Silverstein

NIST has created a problem for Larry Silverstein in their preface:

p. xxxiii, first paragraph, last sentence:

"The decision not to continue evaluating the building and not to fight the fires was made hours before the building collapsed, so no emergency responders were in or near the building when the collapse occurred."

This certainly contradicts Silverstein's claim that his, "Just pull it," comment was referencing a discussion with an FDNY chief. There were no FDNY personnel to pull. Not to mention the fact that building owners don't generally give directions to firefighters.

Great point

This certainly contradicts Silverstein's claim that his, "Just pull it," comment was referencing a discussion with an FDNY chief.

Great point. This explanation of Silverstein has always sounded bogus to me (referring to contingent of firefighters as "it"). Either Silverstein or NIST is lying.

NIST report repeats this

The longer NIST report(the one released that's nearly a thousand pages long), actually supports this still. They claim Silverstein had a conversation with a FDNY commander. In the footnotes it is claimed this information came from a Silverstein letter to them dated March 24 2006. And guess who it was he talked to? Yea, they don't say. Why isn't NIST interested in knowing who he talked to? Why does he never tell us who it was?

Silverstein the guy that solved wtc 7 long ago by saying the antenna from the north tower cut a huge gash in 7, when anyone can watch a video and see the antenna does not fall toward it. But they wont question Lucky Larry. They will just take his letter and repeat it in their report.

Silverstein suggested pulling but

"THEY made the decision to pull.."

According to his words.

Actually

"The decision not to continue evaluating the building and not to fight the fires was made hours before the building collapsed" can still be seen as compatible with S$stein's statement, if he should have had that discussion in early afternoon. He hasn't said precisely when he allegedly had the discussion, or has he?

I still think this essay

I still think this essay could be improved with very little effort.

Suggestion: Remove the linkage with FEMA in the first part and focus solely on the new NIST report and the problems with it. If you want to use the FEMA material, stick it in later.

The way it is now is confusing because NIST and FEMA get mixed, but FEMA is old news while NIST isn't, but maybe that isn't what FEMA meant anyway, etc.
________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

FEMA

"Suggestion: Remove the linkage with FEMA in the first part and focus solely on the new NIST report and the problems with it. If you want to use the FEMA material, stick it in later".

I disagree The FEMA report is extremely relevant. The report actually analyzed steel samples, unlike NIST. NIST is pretending this could not be done and are pretending that the FEMA report does not exist basically. This is hitting them where it hurts.

Don't worry, I take all serious critique seriously and I will make changes when I have time. However, I think it is important to point out that FEMA's report already dismisses the conclusions of NIST's new report as "improbable". This is a very significant admission.

It's not "conspiracy theorists" pointing this out... it's their own government funded report! How much better can it get than this?
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

OK, fine, but don't lead

OK, fine, but don't lead with that. Start with a clear focus on the NIST report. There are many other reasons why it is bs. When you lead with a link between FEMA and NIST you are making it harder to understand and will lose many readers right there. The rest of your piece is very clear and focused. The way it is now speaks mainly to those who already know the issues. Also, is FEMA really such a good authority to debunk NIST? I only say all this because I think the rest of the essay is very effective.
________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

I'm probably missing something obvious,

but why didn't NIST test actual steel? If FEMA had steel samples, why didn't NIST?

I agree.

The NIST report is essentially a large fallacy of omission, beginning with the first piece of evidence, the swiss cheese steel. This avoidance of evidence along with the thermal satellite scans and eyewitness accounts is the sole cause of the thermal expansion solution. By ignoring the evidence that points to something a tad bit hotter than an office fire, they can proceed with the thermal expansion discovery and support it with theoretical computer models.

Question, just recently the model for global climate change was challenged and proven mathematically to be in error with "favorable" equations supporting its erroneous conclusion. When will NIST release the data that their models are predicated on so that specialists can check for accuracy and integrity? If its good for global warming, then why not the NIST models?

You might also highlight Barry Jennings experience with boiler rooms and diesel fuel tanks prior to the video clip as well.
I also have several pictures of fire fighters using high pressure hoses on WTC 6 while 7 continues to burn next door. I suppose NIST avoid this evidence as well when they mention that lack of water. Sprinklers prevent the collapse but firefighter's couldn't? NIST-Not Interested in Science Today.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." -1993-John Skilling, Head Structural Engineer WTC Towers

Why did WTC 7 report take so long?

According to Sunder it really didn't take all that long, as plane crash investigations sometimes take years and they were also
busy with the twin towers explanation. Twin towers explanation that fires fueled by the jet fuel brought them down.

Now for the truth....the truth is it took so long because they refused to
consider any other theory besides fire and hopefully additions to the
fire to explain things. Here is your proof.....

In 2005 NIST was trying to prove how fires could have brought the building down but how to explain it? .....

"NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

How to explain "intense fire"? Well.....................

"There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

But that theory couldn't be applied because the collapse started on the east side away from the location of the fuel tanks.....also the damage to building cannot be used because it also was not at the location of the initial failure....but here it is, what they were going with well into the investigation....

"WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

So another way of blaming fire had to be found. And they think they found it in this study on "thermal expansion" written in the late 90s and published in 2000.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/01410296/2000/00000022/0000000...

This is their "scientific method". Forget that the fires had to be "intense" and admit they were ordinary office fires, despite the FEMA report proving otherwise, just say it was a "new event" never before experianced, and as Sunder said in his noliesradio interview, even if Prof Jones found evidence of thermite in the WTC dust, that doesn't mean it was used on the buildings on 9/11.....he really said that. And he thinks also (said in the same interview)it would be counterproductive to go over the evidence of Prof Jones.