Debunking NIST's Conclusions about WTC 7: Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel

Debunking NIST's conclusions about WTC 7 is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

Symmetrical Collapse

NIST lamely tried to explain the symmetrically collapse as follows:

WTC 7’s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

NIST can't have it both ways. If the exterior frame was so stiff and strong, then it should have stopped the collapse, or - at the very least - we would have seen a bowing effect where tremendous opposing forces were battling each other for dominance in determining the direction of the fall.

In real life, the thick structural beams and "stiff [and strong]" exterior frame used in the building should have quickly stopped any partial collapse, unless the support columns were all blown. At the very worst, we should see a 1 or 2 floor partial collapse.

Freefall Speed

NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than freefall speed. But it collapsed alot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn't very impressive -- that's like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.

Again, why did the building collapse at all, given that the thick structural beams should have quickly stopped any partial collapse?

Fires Knocked Down Steel-Frame Buildings

NIST said fires alone brought down Building 7, but other office fires have burned longer and hotter without causing collapse.

No Explosive Sounds

NIST also said:

"No blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses."

Oh, really?

What about this, this, this, this, this, this and this?

Moreover, as discussed below, high-tech explosives don't necessarily make the same loud "booms" that dynamite make.

High-Tech Explosive Residues

And why were there residues for high-tech explosives at ground zero (and see this)?

Molten and Partially Evaporated Steel

And 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?

And the New York Times wrote that partly EVAPORATED steel beams were found at WTC 7. But normal office and diesel fires are not NEARLY hot enough to evaporate steel. Hydrocarbon fires fueled by diesel (which was apparently stored at WTC 7) and normal office materials cannot evaporate steel. Steel does not evaporate unless it is heated to at least 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Everyone agrees that fires from conventional building fires are thousands of degrees cooler than that.


And why didn't NIST address the obvious pre-knowledge by everyone around and well in advance that 7 was going to come down?


And why didn't NIST address what these experts say?:

  • Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"
  • Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
"Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds... ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."
  • Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
"WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"

In house vetting.

Before this goes to the front page, if there are are 911bloggers familiar with the audio clips GW has linked up, please state any problems that you are aware of with them. The Italian doc clips in particular.

Thanks Rep and all

Definitely appreciate any fact-checking!

What would be easiest for me is tell me which of these is bogus"

"What about this, this, this, this, this, this and this?"

you might want an example of clearly...

... distinquishable explosions. Loud and singular, like what happens in pre-demo, column cutting. Say for instance....

like this video where people can clearly hear the explosive charges going off for themsleves.

This is really good work, GW.

Shane Geiger, Alex Jones, Jason Bermas


7:33 1.3MB

In all honesty

(I'm embarassed to admit), I didn't even watch all of the vids before posting in essay.


Cause they came from sources I thought I could trust (comments here at 911blogger of today) and at What Really Happened.

If any of them are bogus, I take responsibility.

Figure Fudging

NIST base their collapse speed claim on a restricted sample - 18 stories. Why?

Please could Jim Hoffman, Richard Gage or Professor Jones comment on this? Maths and physics are not my strong points, but my bull**** detector has lit up.

Why restrict the investigation....

to certain floors? I would suggest avoiding the following potential situation with WTC 7:

From the interview with Stacey Loizeaux
"Stacey LoizeauxStacey Loizeaux, twenty-six years old, has worked for Controlled Demolition, an international explosives engineering firm, since the age of fifteen. She learned the fine art of demolition from her father, Mark Loizeaux, and her uncle, Doug Loizeaux—president and vice-president of the company. NOVA spoke with Ms. Loizeaux a few days before Christmas, 1996."

"Depending on the height of the structure, we'll work on a couple of different floors—usually anywhere from two to six. The taller the building, the higher up we work. We only really need to work on the first two floors, because—you can make the building come down that way.But we work on several upper floors to help fragment debris for the contractor, so all the debris ends up in small, manageable pieces."

I believe that's why NIST put the floor condition ie. 7 on up on the subcontractors who completed the analysis. The old if we don't see it, it doesn't exist form of science.

Oh and by the way, since when is sound used to discredit the use of explosives?? I'm not a scientist but shouldn't chemical forensic testing be used to discredit explosives?

"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

Debunking needs to start from the 1st premise...

... which is that normal office fires could have weakened ANY steel.

Last December, NIST stated in their conference call:

"At any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed." That is, the office fires died down in about 20 minutes at any single location in WTC 7.

An important clarification: the fires spread from location to location while consuming burnable material. But the material was consumed in about 20 minutes at any single location. After that, any of the fireproofed steel that may have been in or near that location obviously started to cool down.

And of course, massive steel members conduct heat away from the source rather effectively all the time while being heated.

Now, according to a Finnish fire engineering document, the temperature of fireproofed steel in a typical office fire does not reach even 200 degrees Celsius during a 20-minute exposure.
(see the graph on page 216)

200 degrees Celcius has NO effect whatsoever on steel.

Thanks, GW, for writing and

Thanks, GW, for writing and posting this.

A friend of mine, a well-respected and much loved history teacher at a suburban Philadephia high school taught Eric Lipton, the NYT reporter who wrote the WTC7/NIST article the other day.

My friend stays in touch with many of his students. I'm going to send this GW blog/article to him hoping that he will forward it to Lipton, and that Lipton will at least take a look at it.

For what it's worth . . .

NIST Computer model

I would like someone to make a video showing the collapse of building 7 next to the model that was presented by NIST. If you saw the model used you will see what they want you to believe is the inside of the building collapsing useing their own program. Any lay person will see a problem comparing the two. Anyone know if their preposterous computer model gives the time sequence for the Asymmetrical collapse they show which they claim is the explanation for the symmetrical collapse we all see WTC 7 doing?

Again...their own computer model shows an asymmetrical collapse and anyone can see it was a symmetrical collapse...their explanation is .....there are two different collapses occurring....what is going on inside the building and the "shell" of the building. The amount of BS here is beyond belief.

Speaking of models.

Ever seen this one?

These too

NIST WTC-report. What a laugh ...

Monty Python on NIST

Monty Python, "It's only a model." ;)

"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

Thermite is a chemical reaction not an explosive one

Explosions are nothing more than the rapid expansion of gas. Since thermite is a chemical reaction that does not product a rapid expansion of gas, the lack of "hundreds" of explosions is entirely consistant with the use of thermite cutter charges.

The few explosions that were heard probably were conventional explosives used to take out certain "tough" spots - the bases of the main supporting columns or spaced at specific intervals to ensure a symetric collapse.

True investigations never discount the obvious and considers all the likely and un-likely possibilities. The NIST "white-wash" is nothing but a feeble attempt to coat the official propaganda line with a false luster of authority and scientic gloss. The result is worst than psuedo-science, and harkens to the exact methods used in Nazi Germany in the 1930s to "scientifically prove" that Jews were an inferior race.

Techniques developed and employed in the 1930s worked then, but are utterly failing today. Those who have studied history have seen it all before. Eyes, ears and minds have been awoken to the propaganda. There is still some of the "Independent can-do American spirit" left and it is not sitting down like "good Germans of the 1930s" and taking it.'s new "good Germans" and remaining "good American" are onto them and will not stop until justice welds its might sword. The perpatrators of this mass-murder and the subsequent catastrophic events will find no refgue for all the destruction they have caused.

The debunkers are all confused....

on the few forums I belong to, they are literally grasping at straws; it's quite a spectacle, seeing as:

1. They cannot claim the scoop-out as being the cause of the collapse;
2. They cannot claim the diesel fuel fed the fire which caused the collapse;
3. They cannot claim the debris from the falling towers caused the damage which led to the collapse;
4. They must admit that office fires (furniture, paper, carpet, etc.) caused a column of structural reinforced steel to weaken to the point of collapse, and caused a global collapse.
5. They cannot wrap their little heads around the fact that NIST had not ONE piece of steel from WTC7 with which to make these assumptions.
6. They claim that it is NOT the first building to completely collapse principally from fire (even though NIST claims that it is).
7. They claim that the rate of speed (40% of freefall speed) is slow enough to debunk the freefall speed of the building (let's see: 60% of 7 seconds: what is that, 11.6 seconds? 47 stories at that rate of speed, is about 4-5 stories falling pretty much simultaneously).

I think if enough people with backgrounds in the profession can get on the MSM, not to debunk NIST, but just to raise doubts about their conclusions -- and I'm sure they can find plenty more of these points than I could -- well, this could go a long way to making this a national story, more than it's been since yesterday.

Someone needs to tell CNN to shut the "F" up - nothing has been solved.

Demolition blog

That your blog? It's only got one post.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Consider adding some links

I took a look at them. You might want to consider adding some links to 9/11 sites. It turns out that not only does this bring more visitors to sites like 911blogger, if you link to good (high traffic/high inbound link) sites (related to the keywords found on your site especially), Google will like your site more.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

NIST scientists put up to it.

GW, your arguments couldn't be better!

Danny Jowenko's honest reaction as he watched WTC 7 go down, is a strong case for controlled demolition.

The NIST scientists may have little choice? Jack Blood suspects some scientists may fall out at some point to denounce the report?

It's leaves a putrid taste the agency, and the entire effort, may be so out of touch the public is expected to accept the report? Chris Matthews recited the karma "impeccable reputations", when referring to the NIST scientists, as if shouting or whining more makes one more official?

NIST report...
don't believe it!