Canadian Scientist Submits Withering Critique of New NIST WTC7 Report

Dr. Frank Greening (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada) has written a withering critique of the new WTC7 report and has submitted it to NIST as public comment. If this is all NIST can come up with after 7 years, the assisted collapse (demolition) hypothesis becomes all the more relevant.

Read Dr. Greening's critique at The 9/11 Forum

"In reading the Draft WTC 7 Report a number of issues emerge that are crucial to the credibility of NIST’s proposal as to how and why building 7 collapsed on September 11th, 2001. These key issues center on the narrative surrounding the ignition of the fires in WTC 7 and the spreading of these fires within the building prior to its collapse. The accuracy of NIST’s account of what transpired within the confines of building 7 during 9/11, is vital to NIST’s entire WTC 7 Report because it provides the basis for the computer modeling/simulation of the heating of structural elements on the fire-affected floors, which in turn, leads to NIST’s proposed collapse initiation and propagation mechanism.

In the following comments I will attempt to address each of the key topics - fire ignition and spreading, fire intensities and durations, structural heating, collapse initiation and propagation – and in so doing, highlight my concerns or objections to NIST’s position on these topics as presented in its Draft WTC 7 Report."


Good paper !

......Needs to be fowarded to Richard Gage. I would also like to ask anyone here if they are good with a computer if there is a way to show what the outside of building #7 would look like based on the NIST collapse theory. I really doubt it would look like the 47 story, 6.5 second, symmetrical collapse we all seen.

I do architectural drafting and 3d modeling...

I could do it. it would take some time to render though.

hey does anybody know where I can get the construction drawings for Building 7?

Maybe this might help?

Re construction drawings, the NYC Department of Buildings (website:, may be a good place to start. That is, unless the FBI already confiscated all the blueprints. And the original WTC7 architectural firm was Emery Roth & Sons, apparently called Emporis now (website: That is, unless Cheney's maniacs already abducted all the architects who remember the place. The way everything's gotten, who knows?

Alright willyloman !

That would be awesome ! It would be cool to have it side by side with the actual collapse video. I am sure Richard Gage would love to see it too
Someone here posted a diagram from NIST showing how they thought it collapsed. When looking at it, theres no way in hell it could have collapsed in 6.5 seconds symmetrically.
Thanks willy........I look forward to seeing it !

This Person Probably Knows

My analysis

controlled demoliton.

looks like duck, walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck

it is a duck


....... all of us here would agree, but our corrupt media still has the masses saying turkey.

Received some criticism

About ole Greening.

Check out this anonymous comment sent in, and follow the links. (Kicking this off the front page. -rep.)

Frank Greening is a former member of SPINE who was kicked out (even before Reynolds) because he was found to be a phony truth-seeker. He then went on to be the scientific hero of the JREF sadist forum, coming up with many of the most creative theories, always in support of the government's story. His claim to fame is being co-author of a 'conspiracy debunking' paper with Zdenek Bazant.

If anything, I would post this old article, where Greening is said to be organizing the 'National 9/11 Debate' (untrue), in which he and Ronald Wieck were to debate on the government's side. Here, he seems very frustrated with 'conspiracy theorists'.

Or this humorous piece.


"David B. Benson has called me a fool and a liar."
David B. Benson
Newtons Bit
Max Photon

Seems to be a lot of JREF posters on this forum. In fact some of these people were among the first to sign up.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

The 9/11 Forum

The 9/11 Forum has been created to facilitate scientific and evidenced-based discussion on issues surrounding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Our intent is to bring together sincere researchers, irrespective of creed, for constructive dialog and collaboration on 9/11 issues. By "sincere researchers" we mean individuals interested in advancing knowledge and our collective understanding of the events of 9/11. No credentials are required. This forum will have no political or organizational affiliations and is not a venue for activist propaganda. The forum will be open for anyone to read.

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members. We have members from JREF, PhysOrg and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice forum. Two of the members you have pointed out are truth activists. Currently, truth activists out number the debunkers.


Truth first, then Justice.


Maybe there is something I don't know, but your forum is fascinating, and I can understand the need for it. I haven't the requisite expertise to be a member, but I will be following it. Thanks! :-)

not a venue for activist propaganda

"This forum will have no political or organizational affiliations and is not a venue for activist propaganda."

That's a loaded claim considering that you have JREF posters on your site.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

look at it

Read the forum, man. It looks like a place where serious researchers and skeptics can hash through the evidence. And by and large it reads to me like a 9/11 Truth forum, but much more technical and careful.

Right now, this looks to me like something that is needed badly. Genuine discussion and dialogue without the nastiness, or the presumption that 9/11 Truth seekers are just a bunch of kooks, and any possible explanation or technical snowjob is an adequate response, and simply reinforces the notion that we are all kooks. lol

Sadly, we are weaker without strong, intelligent debate. If their intent is good, then this is really valuable.

(Btw, I'm not defending everyone on it, but the forum itself.)

JREF is claiming that they

JREF is claiming that they banned Greening for some off-line activity, so I agree that there are plenty of reasons to find his behavior suspicious.


Why in the world would you remove legitimate criticism of the new WTC draft reports from the first page?

Frank Greening is a honest and serious researcher who has more in common with real truth seekers than with Ron Wieck.


Truth first, then Justice.


Mr. Greening has a checkered past with the 9/11 Truth community.

I should have thought twice before front-paging it.