NIST, surprisingly: WTC7 NOT demolished by explosives

[Surlethe]

BBC

The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center.

The 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.

Investigators are expected to say ordinary fires on several different floors caused the collapse.

Conspiracy theorists have argued that the third tower was brought down in a controlled demolition.

Unlike the twin towers, Tower Seven was not hit by a plane.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, based near Washington DC, is expected to conclude in its long-awaited report this month that ordinary fires caused the building to collapse.

That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire.

See World Trade Center 7's location and structure
The National Institute of Standards and Technology's lead investigator, Dr Shyam Sunder, spoke to BBC Two's "The Conspiracy Files":

"Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings."

'Smoking gun'

However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition.

FIND OUT MORE...
The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower is on BBC Two on Sunday 6 July at 2100 BST
Visit The Conspiracy Files website or catch up using the iPlayer


Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7
Timeline: WTC 7
The BBC and the 'missing' tape

The founder of the group, Richard Gage, says the collapse of the third tower is an obvious example of a controlled demolition using explosives.

"Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11… A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process.

"Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves."

Conspiracy theories

There are a number of facts that have encouraged conspiracy theories about Tower Seven.

Although its collapse potentially made architectural history, all of the thousands of tonnes of steel from the skyscraper were taken away to be melted down.
The third tower was occupied by the Secret Service, the CIA, the Department of Defence and the Office of Emergency Management, which would co-ordinate any response to a disaster or a terrorist attack.
The destruction of the third tower was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The first official inquiry into Tower Seven by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was unable to be definitive about what caused its collapse.
In May 2002 FEMA concluded that the building collapsed because intense fires had burned for hours, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel stored in the building. But it said this had "only a low probability of occurrence" and more work was needed.
But now nearly seven years after 9/11 the definitive official explanation of what happened to Tower Seven is finally about to be published in America.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has spent more than two years investigating Tower Seven but lead investigator Dr Shyam Sunder rejects criticism that it has been slow.


Advertisement
The collapse of Tower 7

"We've been at this for a little over two years and doing a two or two and a half year investigation is not at all unusual. That's the same kind of time frame that takes place when we do aeroplane crash investigations, it takes a few years."

With no steel from Tower 7 to study, investigators have instead made four extremely complex computer models worked out to the finest detail. They're confident their approach can now provide the answers. Dr Sunder says the investigation is moving as fast as possible.

"It's a very complex problem. It requires a level of fidelity in the modelling and rigour in the analysis that has never been done before."

Other skyscrapers haven't fully collapsed before because of fire. But NIST argues that what happened on 9/11 was unique.

Steel structure weakened

It says Tower Seven had an unusual design, built over an electricity substation and a subway; there were many fires that burnt for hours; and crucially, fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives.

Investigators have focused on the east side where the long floor spans were under most stress.

They think fires burnt long enough to weaken and break many of the connections that held the steel structure together.

Most susceptible were the thinner floor beams which required less fireproofing, and the connections between the beams and the columns. As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed, investigators say.

The collapse of the first of the Twin Towers does not seem to have caused any serious damage to Tower Seven, but the second collapse of the 1,368ft (417m) North Tower threw debris at Tower Seven, just 350ft (106m) away.

Tower Seven came down at 5.21pm. Until now most of the photographs have been of the three sides of the building that did not show much obvious physical damage. Now new photos of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, show that whole side damaged and engulfed in smoke.

Wow. The NIST proves once more that it is in on the massive government conspiracy payroll. After all, it is stunningly obvious that a building engulfed in an unfought holocaust, with giant gashes in it from huge falling steel to feed oxygen to the flames, can only have been brought down by controlled demolition.

[Qwerty 42]

In the long run, it probably changes very little. Conspiracy theorists like to poison the well by assuming any source that disagrees with them is paid off by the government/New World Order/Illuminati/George Bush/CIA/Dick Cheney/Jimmy Carter.

[Mange]

Wow. The NIST proves once more that it is in on the massive government conspiracy payroll. After all, it is stunningly obvious that a building engulfed in an unfought holocaust, with giant gashes in it from huge falling steel to feed oxygen to the flames, can only have been brought down by controlled demolition.

Absolutely. I don't understand how the people who are calling themselves 'scientists' (mostly false authorities) are claiming that a collapse was "impossible". WTC7 was built on top of a existing power substation and without having seen the report yet, I think it's easy to see how the intense fires (which of course weren't fought) led to the catastrophic failure of the transfer truss system between floors 5 and 7.
The truthers are going to continue no matter what.

[CJvR]

Yep!

Clearly having the Twin Towers collapse with the energy of a small nuke next door, or even partially on top of WTC7 as well as burning for hours is a total coincident and completly irrelevant.

[Kanastrous]

What's really distressing is that the cover-up has obviously penetrated all the way to SD.net...

Who knew Surlethe was a Bilderberger plant?

[Admiral Valdemar]

What's really distressing is that the cover-up has obviously penetrated all the way to SD.net...

Who knew Surlethe was a Bilderberger plant?

I did, but then the Patriots in league with the Greys and the Evil Atheist Conspiracy came and shut me up.

Hmm, was that a black helicopter just flying past...?

[Admiral Valdemar]

In a moment of collapsing journalistic integrity, the Beeb is showing a programme right now on WTC 7 titled The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower.

EDIT: Actually, it wasn't that bad. It did pretty much slam down their arguments after spending half an hour explaining their crackpot theories. The guy who did Loose Change is also a bit of a wanker.

[Kanastrous]

The 'Loose Change' guys are assholes.

They sit across from guys with PhDs in engineering during radio shows and tell them that they're full of shit and the 'Loose Change' crew understands matters of engineering better than they do.

[Surlethe]

In a moment of collapsing journalistic integrity, the Beeb is showing a programme right now on WTC 7 titled The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower.

I thought the same thing when I saw World Trade Center Third Tower: Mystery Solved? (or something to that effect) as the headline of this article on the BBC News website yesterday.

EDIT: Actually, it wasn't that bad. It did pretty much slam down their arguments after spending half an hour explaining their crackpot theories. The guy who did Loose Change is also a bit of a wanker.

The British are masters of understatement.

[Wanderer]

Yep!

Clearly having the Twin Towers collapse with the energy of a small nuke next door, or even partially on top of WTC7 as well as burning for hours is a total coincident and completly irrelevant.

Not to mention flying steel girders.

One was propelled over 500 feet into another building and ripped a huge ass gap in it.

The collapse also probably popped a few gas mains that added to the carnage and devastation. It certainly fucked the foundation so much that water started leaking into it.

[PeZook]

Yep!

Clearly having the Twin Towers collapse with the energy of a small nuke next door, or even partially on top of WTC7 as well as burning for hours is a total coincident and completly irrelevant.

Not to mention flying steel girders.

One was propelled over 500 feet into another building and ripped a huge ass gap in it.

The collapse also probably popped a few gas mains that added to the carnage and devastation. It certainly fucked the foundation so much that water started leaking into it.

People just plain have no idea about the energies released by a failure of such a massive structure ; They are more interested in superficial appearances, and have no regard for scale.

How did the entire 9/11 conspiracy theory get started?

By some idiot saying: "Oh, it looked like a controlled demolition!"

The argument is still alive and well today.

[The Big I]

You all laugh about this but there are a lot of people that believe that it was a inside job and there were explosives planted before the planes hit This below is a sample of what people are thinking the spaces are different responses on the Aussie yahoo message boards:

yeah, lets see how long THIS one lasts lol
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_f iles/7434230.stm
Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7
The official version, the conspiracy theories and the evidence surrounding the collapse of World Trade Centre 7 on September 11.
1 Sentence Rebuttal to NIST
Sometimes, a single sentence is all that is needed to debunk a bogus claim.
NIST claims in its soon-to-be released report on WTC 7 that fires alone brought down the building. People like Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Gordon Ross and others will - in the near future - definitively demolish that claim in numerous ways.
In the meantime, here's a one-sentence rebuttal to NIST, which links to a New York Times article:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0 2E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewan ted=all
NIST Theory that Fire Brought Down WTC7 is False:
Partly EVAPORATED Steel Beams Were Found After Collapse;
But Neither Office Nor Diesel Fires Can Evaporate Steel
DIESEL FUEL CANNOT EVAPORATE STEEL!

Good link...one would have to be extremely gullible,not to mention stupid to believe the official story that this building fell due to structural damage caused by isolated spot fires on various floors. The footage clearly shows a uniform,symmetrical and free fall collapse of the kind that only occurs during a deliberate,pre planned and pre prepared controlled demolition. I refer only to the video footage provided in my 'good link' statement...the rest of it serves the intent of its creators,albeit unconvincingly.

DIESEL FUEL CANNOT EVAPORATE STEEL!<<<<
But then nor can any explosive so the reports of evaporated steel must be false!

I mentioned it myself in the previous deleted thread. If the fire weakened the structure to the point of collapse; it would means that a fire of the same intensity burning for the same period of time, would have needed to cover the complete area. We know that this would have needed to be the case, as the building did not collapse section by section, but all at one time. Now correct me if I am wrong but didn't they say that the building collapse due to the spreading fire? That means it was in one area before another. Also of course, i don't believe a fire could have brought down this structure. Melt steel and weaken concrete?? Burn at an even temperature across the whole area? After 2 yrs, they can't even come up with a common sense excuse.

Vaporise means to turn to gas, so did they find steel gas in the building? Surely being a gas the vapor would have dissipated, or cooled back to liquid and then to a solid (steel). So did they find steel vapor or is this another figment of the CT flakes fevered imagination?

"So did they find steel vapor"
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

Most susceptible were the thinner floor beams that required less fireproofing and the connections between the beams and the columns. As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed also. Dr Shyam Sunder says: Hmmm. The connections failed THEN the beams sagged...THEN the building fell. Yet when you look at the video, the building doesn't sag, or crumble, or pull away from itself. It falls cleanly within its own footprint at free fall speed. It is just silly to suggest that a fire did this.

But then nor can any explosive so the reports of evaporated steel must be false!
expand your mind out of your paradigm, these are plasma charges...do you still ride a bicycle
to work? we have magnetic technology and much much more..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SvB3PiPBozU&feature=rel ated
http://youtube.com/watch?v=trws3k9vq6M&feature=rel ated


It's bloody scary

[The Big I]

The 'Loose Change' guys are assholes.

They sit across from guys with PhDs in engineering during radio shows and tell them that they're full of shit and the 'Loose Change' crew understands matters of engineering better than they do.

And do you know what people like Alex Jones say about those phD guys that they are CIA plants.

[PeZook]

No, it's bloody hilarious. These are people who think they can ascertain the precise mechanism of collapse based on watching a five-second video clip on youtube. Surely, it is a far more precise analysis than the seven-year NIST report

These guys are the embodiment of the idiot debater we laugh at every day: they think it's not necessary to have a team of qualified specialists conduct carefully designed tests using highly sophisticated mathematical models in order to figure out what exactly happened. After all, we have YouTube!

[PeZook]

And do you know what people like Alex Jones say about those phD guys that they are CIA plants.

Naturally! Every scientists in the world is a CIA plant, unless he happens to say the things CTs agree with, in which case he is a Hero Fighting Against The Establishment!

There is a Hasselblad technician who was once shown a doctored Apollo landing photo, and commented offhand that it looked like it was lighted by studio lights.

This quote is propped up and mentioned every time the moon hoax theory comes up - but then these same people can comment how the Hasselblad cameras wouldn't be able to stand up to the heat in the lunar environment...and that Hasselblad technician (who worked on modifications to the lunar cameras) suddendly isn't an authority anymore.

That's how CTs chose their evidence.

[ShadowRider77]

The conspiracists seems to like to claim that "engineer X and scientist Y said Z, so we win!". Leaving aside the obvious appeal to authority, I noticed that when you go and verify, you invariably find out that

1) their 'experts' actually had no competence whatsoever with the matter at hand. Like Kevin Ryan, who if I remember correctly did water analisys.

or

2) the quoted authority has some competency, but was presented with partial or altered data and sxpressed a superficial opinion rather than an in-depth analisys. For example, Danny Jowenko (sp?) has indeed great experience in demolitions, and he actually said that WTC7 collapse appeared as a demolition, but when he did, he was presented with a clip of a few seconds (like PeZook mentioned), starting when the collapse had already began. The moment Jowenko was presented with a longer video, showing the fires and how the collapse started (with the structures on the roof of WTC7 going down a second or two before the rest of the building...) he said "Hey, wait a moment...".

Another funny thing I keep hearing from 9/11 conspiracists (there's a fair share of them in Italy as well, including some of the least fascinating products of humanity like fascists and stalinists...) is how "Never in history a steel building collapsed by fire, and you pretend that on 9/11 it happened three times! How do you justify it?!?!". D'uh. Possibly, the fact that never in history steel buildings of more than 100 stories were hit by commercial jets at full throttle and with the fuel tanks almost full may have a relation with that...

Leaving aside, naturally, the fact that there are several examples of steel structures collapsing for fire. Heck, I've read a document by the Italian Firefighters stating how a steel structure is actually more dangerous than a wood one in case of fire, because if the fire insulation is damaged even in a small zone, the whole structure can collapse without warning...it appears Italian Firefighters are in the conspiracy as well. Quite an extensive conspiracy, I'd say...

[Kanastrous]

The 'Loose Change' guys are assholes.

They sit across from guys with PhDs in engineering during radio shows and tell them that they're full of shit and the 'Loose Change' crew understands matters of engineering better than they do.

And do you know what people like Alex Jones say about those phD guys that they are CIA plants.

Somebody with a mental health background...what's it called, when you have a set narrative of the world in your head, and no matter what data appears to the contrary, you parse it to fit the pre-established model...?

[Mange]

2) the quoted authority has some competency, but was presented with partial or altered data and sxpressed a superficial opinion rather than an in-depth analisys. For example, Danny Jowenko (sp?) has indeed great experience in demolitions, and he actually said that WTC7 collapse appeared as a demolition, but when he did, he was presented with a clip of a few seconds (like PeZook mentioned), starting when the collapse had already began.

And the truthers ignore that Jowenko always been adamant that WTC 1 and WTC 2 weren't demolished. The reason why Jowenko is in error is quite clear: WTC 7 does share more similarity with a controlled demolition as it collapsed from the bottom as opposed from the top as the towers.
However, I'm not familiar with Jowenko's current position and if he still thinks WTC 7 was demolished, I hope he will change his mind when the report is released.

Another funny thing I keep hearing from 9/11 conspiracists (there's a fair share of them in Italy as well, including some of the least fascinating products of humanity like fascists and stalinists...) is how "Never in history a steel building collapsed by fire, and you pretend that on 9/11 it happened three times! How do you justify it?!?!". D'uh. Possibly, the fact that never in history steel buildings of more than 100 stories were hit by commercial jets at full throttle and with the fuel tanks almost full may have a relation with that...

Yeah, that's an old truther argument. There are many steel buildings which have collapsed due to fire. One building which partially collapsed was the Windsor Tower in Madrid. While the building had a completely different design than the WTC towers (with a concrete core, concrete frame and two concrete floors to add strength), the steel parts on the upper floors weakened and collapsed early in the 2005 (conventional) fire.

[Jade Falcon]

In a moment of collapsing journalistic integrity, the Beeb is showing a programme right now on WTC 7 titled The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower.

EDIT: Actually, it wasn't that bad. It did pretty much slam down their arguments after spending half an hour explaining their crackpot theories. The guy who did Loose Change is also a bit of a wanker.

Aye, I saw that one, I had taped it after Top Gear and have just watched it

there was an architect on the pro-conspiracy side. When they brought in a guy with 30 years experience of bringing down buildings who said that explosives are only reliable for about 3 years, he also showed what sort of wiring goes into preparing a building.

The architect accused the demolitions engineer of being biased and 'employed by the government'. Wait a minute, if he's behind the conspiracy theorists isn't he biased?

Frankly, while the architect might be an 'expert' on constructing buildins, the demoltions guy is an expert at bringing them down.

Also, roll on Richard Clarke, who mentioned that anyone who works in goverment knows that the government isn't competent enough to make a cinspiracy this far reaching, or to keep secrets.

And that twat behind Loose Change showed himself for the arrogant little shit he is.

Interviewer "Dick Clarke has 30 years experience"

Loose Change Guy: "I don't gove a fuck how much experience he has, he's GOVERNMENT, he's part of the systems".

To quote Del Boy, "What a plonker".

Also, when they misreprented what they guy said that was in Tower 7, talk about a smug looking git.