NIST WTC 7 Report: Shameful, Embarrassing And Completely Flawed
NIST Claims "New Phenomenon" Occurred For First Time Ever In Collapse Of WTC 7
Yet fails to address why ground zero workers and media outlets had prior knowledge of an "extraordinary event" never before observed an hour in advance, plus myriad of other ignored issues
Paul Joseph Watson
Propaganda Matrix
Friday, August 22, 2008
In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7 that news outlets are reporting "puts 9/11 conspiracy theories to bed," NIST claims that the never before observed "new phenomenon" of "thermal expansion" was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that simply ignores eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that points to the deliberate demolition of the structure.
NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building's collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon."
If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a "new phenomenon" and an "extraordinary event" that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?
This on its own completely destroys the very foundation of NIST's assertion that a "new phenomenon" was responsible for the collapse.
Which is the more likely scenario - that ground zero officials and media outlets got word that the building was going to be "pulled" - or that they employed clairvoyant powers of deduction that enabled them to foresee an event that had never happened before in history to a building that was structurally reinforced and had suffered limited fires?
NIST claims that the collapse of Building 7 is "The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building".
We are actually being asked to believe the impossible - that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate.
The issue of molten metal, which was discovered under both the twin towers and WTC 7, suggesting an extremely hot burning agent was used in the demolition process, is completely ignored in NIST's report, despite it being acknowledged in Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study, which stated:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
Speaking during a press conference that was called to counter NIST, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, dismissed the report.
"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."
Here are some links to Melted Metal, fused concrete, and mysterious things about the WTC disaster in general...
2 comments:
In the long-awaited report of the investigation of the collapse of the 47-story building World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) on September 11, 2001, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) only pretended to tell us why the building collapsed the way it did. Actually they failed at the task, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars in the process.
NIST set out to explain the collapse of WTC 7 by reconstructing the collapse as a theoretical computer model. Instead they constructed an altogether different collapse -- not the one that needed explaining, but one that did not occur.
In videos of the actual collapse, such as at the start of http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html, walls and edges of the building remain fairly straight and vertical as the building descends. In the NIST computer model the exterior severely buckles before the building descends. (Pages 107-108 in document NCSTAR 1-9A). The top of the building was not observed collapsing in on itself as NIST claims. See for yourself on the NIST web page http://wtc.nist.gov.
This is not a minor quibble, but a major contradiction. The NIST theory does not fit the facts. This should be a major scandal.
Thanks for the comment philippok. The NIST theory was, imho, written to fit the official story. There is no doubt in my mind that the existing evidence would convict the powers that be of fraud, in a valid court of law. Why else would this thing be dragging on for so long and so many millions of $$$ spent on more than 10,000 pages of manufactured information...G:
Post a Comment