This is not the "Part II" I had originally envisioned. That will have to wait for Part III. In following up on the erroneous measurement described by John Gross in Part I, I decided to look more carefully at the measurement and find the video frame NIST claims marks the beginning of the collapse. What I found is that there is no motion of the roofline for at least 20-30 video frames after the point identified by John Gross. In other words, the measurement is a complete fabrication with the goal of producing a "measurement" to agree with the result predicted by NIST's collapse model. This result is sufficiently significant to merit its own video.
--David Chandler, AE911Truth
NIST has now officially accepted that WTC7 came down with the acceleration of gravity, but they still couch it as a phase in a 5.4 second interval they claim matches the 5.4 seconds required for their model to collapse 18 floors. The starting point of their 5.4 second interval is totally arbitrary. This new video highlights the August 26 technical briefing and allows Sunder and Gross to shoot holes in their own feet. Part II, which is planned to come out in a week or two, will go into detail about the implications of freefall. A list of bullet points has been compiled on that topic already, but if anyone has a special take on it that they would like to feed into the mix, please contact me at email@example.com.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) today released its final report on the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City. The final report is strengthened by clarifications and supplemental text suggested by organizations and individuals worldwide in response to the draft WTC 7 report, released for public comment on Aug. 21, but the revisions did not alter the investigation team’s major findings and recommendations, which include identification of fire as the primary cause for the building’s failure.
The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
NIST left out key words in a statement about shear studs so they could falsely claim that there were no studs on the key girder between columns 79 and 44.
This is critical to their collapse theory.
NIST L pg 6 [10 on pg counter]
Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders.
NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 15 
Most of the beams were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for the girders.
NCSTAR 1A pg 49 
The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) has published comments on the NIST WTC 7 Report. The CTBUH questions critical points of the NIST WTC 7 collapse theory and also highlights problems with the writing NIST report itself.
The CTBUH criticisms focus on two technical issues The conjectured failure of shear studs and bolts on the supposedly critical Column 79:
Several conclusions drawn in the NIST report on the contribution of structural
components in failure initiation are unexpected and have raised concerns
within the Council. These conclusions involve the role of both shear studs and
local global buckling of the floor beams in failure initiation. The Council
believes that the local connection performance was a significant part of the
global failure and would like to have seen a more explicit analysis of the
connection failure. (See also comment on Chapters 11-13.)
Flyby News Notes -
Editor - Jonathan Mark - www.FlybyNews.com
September 29, 2008 - Bailout Mania * WTC science * Extremists
"..After stealing a half trillion dollars to line the pockets
of their war-profiteering backers for the past five years,
after lining the pockets of their fellow oilmen to the tune
of over a hundred billion dollars in just the last two years,
Bush and his cronies -- who must soon vacate the White House
-- are looting the U.S. Treasury of every dollar they can grab.."
-- Michael Moore
1) Bailout Out of Balance, loses footing, what is next
- - Bailout bill fails on first House vote; what next is unclear
- - The Rich Are Staging a Coup This Morning says Michael Moore
- - The Bailout Is - Literally - Fascist
- - US Banking Collapse a 'Controlled Demolition' (and other tales)
- - David Ray Griffin: Bush Doctrine enters American vocabulary
- - Vice President Dick Cheney's Incredible and Deadly Lie
- - US Combat Troops in Iraq repatriated to 'help with civil unrest'
2) Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST and more
- - Statement of September 11th Advocates Regarding NIST WTC7 report
I emailed the following comments to NIST today, well before the deadline for submitting comments. I utilized Kevin Ryan's recent critique of NIST's draft report. Gregg Roberts gave useful feedback on the text and "Americanized" the language.
* * * * *
Here are my comments on the long-awaited draft for public comment of NIST's report on WTC 7, issued by NIST on August 21st, 2008.
1. Collapse Models
AE911Truth will soon publish its response to NIST's final report on WTC7. In the meantime, this graphic illustrates that NIST's analysis is NOT consistent with photographic and video evidence. A higher resolution PDF may be found here: http://ae911truth.org/downloads/WTC_fire_sim_comparison_080912c.pdf. Please forward this blog and document link to anyone you think can help spread the truth.
(graphic below the fold)
Shyam Sunder describes in the NIST technical briefing and the slide show/document titled;
NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster August 26, 2008
states on page 32: “Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat.” [to the west]
In NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 page 353 [397 on pg counter] it says:
“Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 [to the east]
Dylan Avery posed the question "Who writes this stuff?"
I can't say for sure but the evidence seems to point to one of the founding fathers.
Note text at 0:30
See http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/GreeningCommentsNCSTAR1-9.pdf for a detailed rebuttal to the final report on WTC7 by NIST. It clearly shows that the NIST explanation is not credible.
Comments on the Draft Report NIST NCSTAR 1-9: “Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7”, issued by NIST August 21st, 2008
(Revised and Extended Version of Comments Issued September 11th 2008)
By F. R. Greening
A preliminary (draft) version of NIST’s final report on the collapse of WTC 7 was issued on August 21st 2008 together with a call by NIST’s Investigation Team for the submission of comments on the Draft Report from interested parties within the general public. First I wish to thank NIST for producing such a detailed technical report on the collapse of WTC 7 and secondly, I applaud NIST for allowing researchers from around the world to offer technical feedback that hopefully will be duly considered by NIST before a final version of the report is issued.
Perhaps we should invite David Scott, chairman of CTBUH, to a live open debate. He says he has examined the truth movement's claims and finds in our movement "no credibility whatsoever."
"I believe that the NIST report is a responsible attempt to find the cause of the failure, however there are many questions that are not answered in any detail and several of these questions are already on the discussion forum. I think that with a responsible dialog and debate that the NIST report can be much better and clearer than it is in the current form.
Flyby News Notes -
Editor - Jonathan Mark - www.FlybyNews.com
September 2, 2008 - NIST Lies * Jehan Box * Ice Tipping * Nukes
"The future is in the past
with no escape present."
- Bart Jordan
1) NIST supports 9/11 cover-up
- - Debunking NIST's Conclusions About WTC 7
- - The Financial Times and the 'Self-Confessed Mastermind of 9/11'
- - FBI Sweeps Anthrax Under the Rug
- - Sarah Palin, grazing animals and the herd mentality
- - "The Reflecting Pool" receives award at Moondance Film Fest
- - September 08 Month of Truth – campaigns and events
2) Jehan Abdur-Raheem Hunger Strike to Get Out of BOX
- - McCain’s military father and betrayal of USS Liberty
3) Nuke Fight Nears Decisive Moment
- - Sally Shaw - rain, meetings, and rad waste
- - Radiation levels raised at Vt. Yankee
4) Arctic ice 'is at tipping point'
- - Warming and 9/11 Related Danger Zones
The NIST report on WTC 7 lays its focus on Column 79 on floor 8 to 13 and some hypothetical damage in its computer modeling.
I want to focus on real visible damage to the columns on the west side of the building near the Verizon building, and there especially on E3 and E4.
I just combed trough the NIST report on WTC 7 regarding these cuts. There is just no word on these cuts. As if they do not know these images.
A few days ago I posted a graphic from NIST's latest WTC7 report that depicts the exterior buckling after global collapse initiation. In no way does it resemble how the structure actually looks when it imploded. I had not noticed that this was the model for the scenario without debris impact damage. You see, NIST actually has models for the scenario without debris impact damage and for the scenario with their best estimated impact damage (the damage to the south side). They conclude that the building would also have collapsed without any impact damage.
So I checked the report for their modeling of the exterior buckling with the best estimated impact damage; the model of what actually happened. It's there but there is something missing: the top 23 floors are not shown and the north side is not shown; the side that can actually be seen in the videos and photographs of the collapse.