Investing in Precious Metals 101 ad

Book Review: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Login or register to post comments Last Post 80589 reads   595 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 595 total)
  • Fri, May 02, 2014 - 10:49am

    #1
    .

    .

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2008

    Posts: 311

    count placeholder

    Book Review: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7

 

Book Review—The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:  Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False.  By David Ray Griffin

 

 

“A definitive study of what happens when political concerns are permitted to override science and the scientific method.  With intellectual finesse worthy of a scientist, Griffin shows that NIST’s WTC7 report has no scientific credibility.”

— John D. Wyndham, Ph.D., Physics, Cambridge University, former Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology

 

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
—Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1841

 

If human beings do indeed recover their senses slowly, and one by one, David Ray Griffin and a loose association of scientists have done much to lead the way.  Griffin, a retired college professor, theologian and minister, has devoted his impressive intellect and energies to critically examining and deconstructing the Great Myth or our day; the story told about how Osama bin Laden destroyed 3 New York City skyscrapers by hitting 2 of them with airplanes.

 

In this book, Griffin takes on the particular issue of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7), the 47 story skyscraper in the World Trade Center complex that was NOT hit by an airplane, yet collapsed on 9/11.  He critiques the report made by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the US Commerce Department which is under the supervision of the white house.  Readers are encouraged to download the 3 versions of the reports (1,000+ pages) so as to follow the discussion and peruse the graphics.

NIST NCSTAR 1-9A 

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 1

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 2

 

 

Griffin draws on the significant work of structural engineers, fire safety engineers, first responders, metallurgists, architects, physicists and various other professionals who have analyzed and responded to the NIST report.  Some of their analyses are gathered on the AE911Truth.com website, some in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and many from the NIST website itself as public comments, corrections and requests for clarification in the NIST report as it went through a several iterations leading to the final report.  Griffin includes over 1,000 referenced footnotes in his book.

 

Griffin concludes that the NIST report was above all motivated by the political need to obtain a specific conclusion.  In pursuit of this goal, uses of logical fallacies (such as straw man arguments), breaches of the principles of scientific reasoning (such as failing to start with the most likely hypothesis) and the omission of a large volume of material evidence that contradicts the sought conclusion.  Two instances of fraud are reported.  Meticulously, thoroughly and unrelentingly, he deconstructs the NIST explanation of why the WTC7 collapsed and frames its report as a process directed to a politically motivated conclusion rather than a work of investigative science.

 

 

The two “challenges” NIST faced

 

The first “challenge” NIST faced was to explain the collapse of a building that appeared classic for an explosive demolition (an implosion) as being due to some non-explosive cause.  About one hundred video recordings of implosion demolitions can be found on youtube (for example: hereherehere) and at implosionworld.com

Picture 1:  The general detonation pattern of a typical implosion.

Articles describing how an implosion is structured are available.  Thus is easy for anyone interested to become familiar with what an implosion looks like. Yet NIST took a different path:  They endeavored to develop an entirely novel explanation for what appears to be another example of this familiar event.

 

 

Appearance of an implosion

 

The collapse of WTC7 shows the cardinal characteristics of explosive demolition; more specifically, the pattern called “an implosion.”

1.  Collapse started at the bottom.

2.  The onset of the collapse was sudden.

3.  The collapse was total

4.  The building came straight down (the tall building did not tip)

5.  The acceleration approximated that of a free-falling object.

6.  Most of the concrete was pulverized into tiny particles producing a large dust cloud.

7.  The building ended up as a relatively small pile of debris showing “high-order damage.”

 

This 2.5 minute compilation of video footage of the WTC7 collapse shows most of these features, the clearest between the 2:00 and 2:30 marks)

 

Fire-Resistance Classifications of Building Constructions

 

The second “challenge” was that WTC7 was a Fire-Resistance Class 1A building, universally regarded as impervious to destruction by fire.  And, in fact, historically no FR class IA building has ever, either before or after 9/11, collapsed due to fire.  Class IA buildings are made of incombustible materials (steel, cement and glass) and by definition “can withstand complete combustion of their contents” without collapse.

 

NISTs appears to have framed their task as: How can we explain the collapse of WTC7 as the result of:

1.  a progressive process  

2.  initiated by fire.

 

Griffin draws on the critique of the NIST report by a grass-roots gathering of professionals who conclude that the work is an example the use “science” to deceive.

 

 

Breaching fundamental scientific procedure: Failure to entertain the most likely hypothesis

 

The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association, recommends beginning with a search for explosives when there is “high-order damage characterized by shattering of the structure producing small, pulverized debris with the building completely demolished.”  “High order damage” certainly describes Building 7. But NIST did not do take this advice.

 

Physics professor Steven Jones to NIST:  “Did you find any evidence for use of explosives?”

NIST:  “No. We found no evidence for use of explosives.”

Jones:  “Did you LOOK for evidence of explosives or residues of explosives?”

NIST:  “No we did not.”

 

Hence, the story begins with NIST deviating from a fundamental fire safety forensic procedure by declining to consider the most probable hypothesis, explosive demolition, in a building whose appearance is classic for explosive demolition.  Instead NIST simply asserts: “This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.”

 

Pictures 2 & 3:  Collapsed buildings without “high order damage.” We can see the architecture and easily see the windows, balconies, stairwells, etc.  The structure is recognizable post collapse.

 

 

Picture 4:  Contrast this with the WTC7 debris pile (bottom of page 3): a collapsed building with “high order damage.”

 

[I am unable to load this picture, so the link is included.]

Picture 5:  Another example of severe “high-order-damage.”

 

 

Dismissing explosive demolition with a “straw man” argument

 

Why did they decide not investigate the possibility of explosive demolition? NIST explains that they did not feel that the hypothesis of explosive demolition was “credible.”  Griffin points out that the reasoning used to dismiss this hypothesis uses a classic straw man logical fallacy.  NIST explains:  if explosives were used, the “most likely blast scenario” would be 9 pounds of RDX explosive applied in a linear shaped charge to column 79 below the 25th floor.  However, this would have produced window breakage on the north-eastern face of the building and a sound of 140 decibels in the street.  These were not observed.  Therefore, they concluded, explosive demolition is not a credible hypothesis.

 

Proponents of the explosive demolition hypothesis have never suggested RDX was used, or column 79 (or any single column) targeted.  Instead, nanothermite, a new high explosive compound developed by the military in the 90’s is suggested.  Neils Harrit, chemistry professor at the University of Copenhagen, and Steven E. Jones, physics professor from Brigham Young University, analyzed WTC dust taken from four different sites finding both unexploded chips of nanothermite and chemical residues of this new explosive.

Picture 6.  Unexploded reddish-grey nano-thermite chips found in all four of the WTC dust samples.

Spectroscopic profile of one component of the dust.

 

NIST never responded to this published paper, these findings posted on its website, allowed Dr Harritt to testify as he requested, or gave any indication that this paper was received even though it was sent to them by multiple professionals.  It seems that maintaining its “no evidence for use of explosives” stance even prevented them from acknowledging evidence delivered to them directly by the professional community.

 

Jim Hoffman, a metallurgical engineer, summarizes the large body of evidence pointing towards nano-thermite usage in his essay “Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives

 

The majority of people who watch this 9 second collapse video of WTC7 immediately suspect explosive demolition. David Chandler, a high-school physics instructor who writes about 9/11, observes:  “People are not stupid.”  Even people who have never taken formal physics courses intuitively recognize that this collapse looks like an explosive demolition.  So it is very telling that NIST was able to watch this same video but find NOTHING to suggest explosive demolition. This observation alone indicates that NIST was completely dedicated to developing an explanation that did not include explosives.

 

 

Ignoring testimony of the fire department and city officials reporting explosions.

 

Griffin reviews the testimony of people who heard, saw and felt explosions in WTC7 including Barry Jennings, a city official, who was in WTC7 on the morning of 9/11 and who reports being blown to the floor by an explosion and blinded by smoke about 9:30 am.  Graeme MacQueen, professor at the University of Ontario, reviews testimony of dozens of firefighters (The Oral Histories of 9/11) who heard explosions before the collapse and knew hours in advance that WTC7 was going to collapse. And most curiously, three news reporters mistakenly reported WTC had collapsed 30 minutes BEFORE it actually had!  If the collapse were indeed due to a natural process, that resulted from a novel and completely unexpected mechanism, why would so many (correctly) be expecting collapse in advance and seem to know its timing?  This testimony is striking in its omission from the report.

 

 

Griffin begins by documenting the exclusion of evidence for explosive demotion using willful blindness, logical fallacies and the scientific fraud of excluding the huge body of data that contradicts its conclusion.  In Part 2 we ask: How does NIST explain the collapse?

  • Fri, May 02, 2014 - 06:02pm

    #2

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1945

    count placeholder

    Parts 2 & 3 tomorrow …..

Time to go to work…..

  • Sat, May 03, 2014 - 05:11am

    #3

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1945

    count placeholder

    Book Review Part 2: How did NIST explain the collapse?

 

Book Review—The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:  Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False.  By David Ray Griffin  

 

 

Part 2:  How did NIST explain the collapse of WTC7?

 

In Part 2 I begin by summarizing the key points in the 1,000+ page final report and finish by including pictures and diagrams where helpful.

 

1.  Debris from the collapsing North Tower struck Building 7 at 10:28 am starting fires on a couple of floors beginning in the south-west corner.

2.  Office workstations caught fire.  The fire spread from workstation to workstation moving across the building to the north-east corner (where the collapse would be initiated 6-1/2 hours later).

3.  Fires on the 12th and 13th floors play a big part in the story.

4.  Horizontal steel beams in the floor of the 13th floor (which was the ceiling of the 12th floor) expanded (lengthened) more than the cement floor slabs to which they were attached, severing the shear studs that attached the cement floor slab to the support beams.

5.  These floor support beams, now detached from the cement floor slab and elongated, pushed the horizontal girder connecting vertical columns 79 and 44 out of place.  (I’ll call this the “crucial girder.”)

6.  After elongating and pushing, the floor beams then sagged and gave way causing the 13th floor in the northeast corner to collapse crushing the floor below it, which in turn collapsed crushing the one below it, sequentially, collapsing 7 floors.  The loss of these 7 floors deprived vertical column 79 of lateral support.

6.  Vertical column 79 buckled.  This produced the first visible drop in the roof line as the penthouse dropped first.

7.  The collapse of column 79 started a progressive, cascading destruction of the inner portions of the building, where each failing component pulled down the neighboring structures to which they were attached.

8.   The collapse proceeded in a step-wise cascade from the north-east towards the south-west through all of the central columns until the building was a hollow shell without any functioning central columns.

9.  In the final step, the unsupported outer walls (the façade) buckled and were pulled inward, then, fell towards the ground in a total global collapse.

 

In pictures:

1. Layout of the WTC complex. NW is at the top.  The SW corner of WTC7 was damaged by falling debris from the North Tower (WTC1).  Fires started in the SW corner.

 

2. Floor plan of the 13th floor. Note core column 79 and outer column 44 (both in the upper right) and the “crucial girder” connecting them.  Floor beams attached to the crucial girder on its right are the ones that expanded and pushed the crucial girder off its supports.  The NE corner where the NIST collapse scenario is triggered by the heating of the floor beams causing expansion, and later collapse.

3. A picture of a typical WTC7 floor (taken during a renovation) showing the cement slab floor at the bottom, and overhead, girders (running right to left), floor support beams (running away from viewer) and the cement floor slab of the floor above. Vertical external columns are visible on the right side. Core columns are just out of view to the left of the photo and others are hidden behind drywall on the left.  This view is taken from the north-east corner. The “crucial girder” is the one visible in the overhead foreground, and the floor support beams that pushed it are the ones visible here running away from the viewer.  The viewer is standing in the location of the fires that initiated the collapse sequence.

 

4.  A close up view of a beam with some spray-on fire-retardant material removed.  The beam is lying on its side.

 

5.  Office furniture was the fuel for the fire.  This become important when we consider the amount of heat produced.  Pictured is a “typical WTC office.”

 

6.  Graphic from NIST’s simulation:  The expanding floor beam (green) pushed the “crucial girder” (blue) off its connection (red) to vertical column 79 (purple).  There are no photographs of the actual connection piece, just this animation from the computer model. (I suspect that an actual photograph of the connection would have appeared more substantial than the flimsy looking connector from the computer model pictured here.)

 

 

 

7.  Animation of floor beams collapsing.  After the floor beams lengthened and pushed the crucial girder out of place, they then sagged and collapse.  Red indicates the hotter portions of steel beams where sagging and breakage are predicted.

 

 

8.  Unsupported column 79 buckles starting the cascading destruction of the building core. NIST NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 p 573

 

9.  Progression of collapse through the central columns as each failing structure pulls down everything attached to it.  This begins with “Group 1” (which including column 79) in the NE and proceeds in a wave through the entire core to the SW finally bringing down “Group 8” on the opposite side of the building. 

10.  More computer animations of progressive destruction of the core columns.  Here you can clearly see the progressive quality and the wave of movement of destruction beginning in the northeast corner and finishing in the southwest corner. NIST NCSTAR 1-9 v2 beginning on p590  [Critics of NIST point out that there is absolutely nothing even remotely like this wave of destruction observed on videos of the actual collapse.  We will return to this criticism in part 3]

 

11.  Computer animation of the predicted appearance of the outer surface of the building.  Core columns were attached to the outer façade of the building and as they sequentially collapse, the outer façade is, in the computer model, deformed and twisted. Please review the larger and much clearer images in the report itself.  (This is another prediction of the computer model that is in sharp disagreement to actual observations of the building itself.) NIST NCSTAR 1-9 v2  p593

 

This summarizes the NIST computer simulation. 

In part 3, we will look at specific objections to the NIST report raised by scientists.

  • Sat, May 03, 2014 - 06:21am

    #4

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1945

    count placeholder

    Book Review Part 3: Criticisms of the NIST Report

 

 

 

Book Review—The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:  Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False.  By David Ray Griffin  

 

Part 3:  Criticisms of the NIST Report.

 

 

The proposed NIST scenario was developed using computer modeling not any physical experimentation.  A limitation of computer models is that it is possible to fudge inputs pursuing a desired outcome. Griffin summarizes criticisms of the report that suggesting that this is exactly what happened.

 

I will just mention a couple of criticisms without discussion:  gross over estimation of the amount of combustible fuel in the offices, exaggeration of the duration of the fires (when compared to photographs of the building), and exaggeration of the temperatures achievable by burning office furniture.

 

Now we will turn to a four specific technical criticisms with the NIST scenario.

 

Two specific distortions, absolutely critical to the story, are worthy of detailed examination:  First, the failure to quantify the initiating event, the magnitude of floor support beam thermal expansion, and, second, the way that NIST explains the failure of the shear studs that attached the cement floor slab to the steel support beams beneath them. This will focus on a deception and fraud in computer modeling process discovered by fire safety engineers, Proe and Thomas.

 

Third, we will touch on the discrepancy between the computer model and actual observations of the building collapse.  And last, we will address the special issue of free-fall and its profound implications as to the cause of collapse.  Specifically, we will show that the observed free-fall acceleration is completely incompatible with a progressive collapse mechanism.

 

 

How much did the floor support beams expand?

 

 

How much did the floor support beams supposedly expand?  NIST does not quantified this critical dimension despite the fact that it is the lynch pin of their proposed collapse initiation mechanism.  NIST simple states that the expansion was “enough."  Referring to diagrams, Kevin Ryan reviews the amount of linear expansion required to “walk the horizontal girder off its supports” between columns 44 and 79.  According to Ryan’s calculations, even assuming the exaggerated steel temperatures and fire durations NIST proposes, expansion of only about an inch or two would be produced. He advises that this is “not nearly enough.”  Despite a thousand page report with ten thousand other measurements, this measurement, the critical initiating step of their entire collapse mechanism, is not quantified. The complete omission of this most critical data element in a report otherwise full of fine grain data is most curious especially in the light of the impressions of other engineers that NIST has exaggerated the magnitude of thermal expansion possible. They also do not include any picture or blue print of the connector to column 79.

 

 

 

The mysterious vanishing (and failing) shear studs

 

The importance of the shear studs to the NIST proposed mechanism cannot be over emphasized.  A shear stud is a 0.75” x 5” nail-like device that pins the cement floor slab to the supporting beams and girders beneath it. With shear studs in place, the cement floor slabs would have stabilized and prevented the displacement of the crucial girder between columns 79 and 44.  Thus, the entire mechanism NIST proposes requires an absence of functioning shear studs.  How was NIST able to remove all functioning shear studs in their simulation?  It is quite a story.

Picture 1:  The red dots represent the shear studs in the computer model.

 

 

 

Picture 2:  Shear studs connect the bottom of the corrugated steel floor pan (shown here) to the flange of the beam beneath it.  (In construction of a floor, the steel floor pan was anchored to the underlying beams with and girders with shear studs, then filled with cement about 4” deep and a welded wire mesh is set into the cement before drying.)  The shear studs make the cement and steel “composite” (function as a unit).

 

 

Picture 3:  Larger picture here.  This picture is taken from the shop blueprint drawing of Cantor, the WTC architect, showing the way the cement floor slab is attached to the support beams and girders (shown in end view) with shear studs.

 

 

 

 

What happened to all the shear studs?

 

1.  Shear studs on the girders:  Between NIST’s 2004 and 2008 reports, the shear studs along the girders simply disappeared from their model.  In the 2004 report, shear studs were present “on girders and beams,” but in the 2008 report, were only present “on beams.”  Shear studs on girders appear to have been simply deleted from the computer model. The scientific community reacted to this with outrage and accusations of fraud, and demanded an explanation.  No response or explanation has been offered by NIST.

 

2.  Shear studs on the floor support beams:  NIST reports that the heat of the fires caused differing expansion of the steel floor support beams relative to the cement floor slab causing the shear studs to break.  The heated steel expanded more than the heated cement and that this difference in thermal expansion severed the shear studs.

 

Fire safety engineers David Proe and Ian Thomas, faculty (and director) at the Environmental Safety and Risk Engineering department of the University of Melbourne, were most perplexed about this.  The linear thermal expansion coefficients of cement and steel are very similar (1.20 vs. 1.24) so a structure made of cement and steel, pinned together, should have expanded as a unit without significant shear stresses between components.  In fact, the use of cement/steel composites is a widely used principle of designing buildings for fire safety. Proe questioned NIST:

 

“The assessment of WTC7 appears to conclude that composite beams [i.e., beams connected to floor slabs with shear studs] are extremely susceptible to failure due to thermal expansion.  This is not our experience at all.”

 

And later:

 

“We are particularly interested in the finding that the shear studs failed at low temperature.  Having conducted numerous fire tests on composite beams, we have never observed this.  Was there any physical evidence obtained of this type of failure?”

 

NIST never made any direct response to the questions and comments posted by Proe on the NIST website.  However, deep in their 2008 report, buried in a single sentence at the bottom of page 351, the reason for the finding was discovered:

 

“No thermal expansion … was considered for the concrete slab as the concrete slab was not heated in this analysis.”

(TMCWTC7 p220 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9 vol 1: p 351, last sentence)

 

 

Incredibly, NIST applied “simulated heating” to the steel support beams (in the computer model) without “simulated heating” of the concrete slab to which the beam was attached, and then attributed breakage of the “virtual shear studs” to the difference in thermal expansion between the two!  A real world fire would have obviously heated both together and they would have expanded as a unit.  This critical deception is documented in only this single sentence of a 1,000-page report and was uncovered by fire safety engineers, David Proe and Ian Thomas.

 

The handling of the shear studs is fraudulent from start to finish.  “Virtual shear studs” in “virtual girders” were simply deleted from the computer model, and those in “virtual floor support beams” were “virtually severed” by an impossibly unrealistic selective heating shenanigan possible only in the simulated world of computer modeling. 

 

This episode should serve as a reminder that with computer modeling, the unscrupulous can tweak inputs until a desired outcome is produced.  It also serves as a reminder that the NIST report is not a physical study, but only a computer simulation where problematic structures that get in the way of a desired conclusion can be altered with a few taps of a keyboard. 

 

 

Discrepancies between the NIST predictions and the observed behavior of the building during collapse.

 

1.  Failure of one end of the building to fall before the other.  Frank Greening, physicist, notes that the NIST scenario indicates that the NE end of the building begins its collapse a full 4 seconds before the SW end.  This creates a prediction that can be compared to the observable event.  Please watch the initial 2.5-minute collapse compilation video again specifically looking for any evidence that one end of the building is collapsing ahead of the other. Do both ends of the building start to drop at the same time and stay even throughout the drop?  It is clear that they do.  (There is a kink in the middle of the building, but the two ends fall together.) This finding is incompatible with the wave like progression of collapse described by NIST that spreads from one end of the building to the other.

 

2.   Failure to observe the predicted buckling of the façade.  NIST explains that the NE half of the core was destroyed several seconds before the visible drop in the roof line began.  Yet the core columns are connected to the façade at every floor by steel girders.  A collapsing core would pull in the façade and deform the flatness of its surface.  Even NIST’s simulations predict the outer surface of the building (the facade) will buckle and warp.  Needless to say, there is no visible buckling of the façade at all seen in any of the videos.  The observed uniform smoothness of the façade profoundly undercuts any progressive collapse explanation in which the core is destroyed asymmetrically or prior to the façade.

 

Please compare this animation of the crumbling facade from NIST with the actual observed behavior of the building again.  Both are viewed from the north side of the building.  How well do they match?  Brief video source link.    and NIST NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2, p 593

 

 

Thus we see that two major NIST model predictions of the global collapse are easily seen to not even remotely close to the observable appearance of the building in videos.

 

3.  Free fall:  The nail-in-the-coffin of any progressive collapse theory.

 

David Chandler, a high school physics teacher, has written on the basic physics of the WTC collapse  very eloquently and is quoted by Griffin. Chandler begins by documenting 2.5 seconds of free fall from a video software tool used by physicists applied to a video clip of the collapsing WTC7.  He finds that there is a 2.5 second period where the building is accelerating at free fall speeds.  It continues to accelerate after that, but not quite as quickly.

 

 

Chandler points out that FREE FALL is the antithesis of a PROGRESSIVE collapse.  They are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist.  A collapse can either be at free fall or it can be progressive, but not both. He explains:

 

What if a heavy object falls through other objects, breaking them, crushing them or bending them as it goes? Newton's third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in free fall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down, and by Newton's third law, the falling object cannot be pushing on anything else either.

 

Stated another way, Chandler explains the significance of the observed free fall:

 

Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.  In other words, the gravitational potential energy of the building is not available to crush or deform anything.  During free fall, all of the gravitational potential energy of the building is being converted into kinetic energy, and nothing else.  Any breaking, bending, crushing or pulverizing of the building components is occurring without the assistance of the free-falling portions of the building.  Any force the top portion of the building might exert on the lower portions would be reflected in a reaction force that would produce an observable slowing of the rate of fall.  Source (at 2:45).

 

Progressive collapses cause crumbling of the building structure that appears halting, tumbling and irregular.  He concludes:

 

“In short, the evidence is clear.  We are not witnessing the collapse of a building but its demolition.” Source (at 8:10)

 

 

Near universal intuitive recognition of a demolition

 

Though most people have not taken a physics course, most intuitively recognize a demolition when they see it.  This is the reason that most everyone who views the 9 second video immediately recognizes that “something is wrong.”  “It looks like it is being blown up.”

 

Conclusion

 

The “challenge” NIST faced in explaining the collapse of WTC7, as due to a non-explosive mechanism, was indeed very formidable.  This is because its appearance is so classic for an explosive demolition.  NIST would further have us believe that WTC7 is the first and only Fire-Resistance Class IA building ever to collapse due to fire. Witnesses reported hearing explosions, firefighters and newscasters knew in advance that its collapse was imminent, and chemists found nano-thermite, a high-tech military explosive, in the dust.  NIST ignored the wealth of information pointing towards explosions.

 

Griffin drew together the technical objections to the NIST report itself.

He points out significant omissions of data, deviation from accepted scientific method, deceptions and several instances of overt fraud.  Particularly disturbing is the failure to quantify the degree of thermal expansion of floor support beams, the initiating event of the NIST scenario.  Overt fraud was found in the handling of the vanishing shear studs.

 

He concludes that the NIST report is above all else a political document that chases a foreordained conclusion and should not be mistaken for an inquiry driven by scientific method or a search for truth.

 

Fortunately, we can compare the NIST predictions with actual video footage of the building as it falls.  The predictions not match at all:  Both ends of the building fall simultaneously and evenly and no deformation of the façade is seen.  And, most importantly, the building falls at free fall acceleration, an observation absolutely incompatible with a progressive collapse process.

  • Sat, May 03, 2014 - 02:50pm

    #5

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1945

    count placeholder

    Book Review Part 1’s Pictures

 

I inadvertently deleted pictures from Part 1.  I will reinsert them here.

 

Picture 1:  The general detonation pattern of a typical implosion.

Source:  http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm 

 

Pictures 2 & 3:  Collapsed buildings without “high order damage.” We can see the architecture and easily see the windows, balconies, stairwells, etc.  The structure is recognizable post collapse.

 

Picture 4:  Contrast this with the WTC7 debris pile: a collapsed building with “high order damage.”  (A larger and much clearer picture is found at the bottom of page 3.  http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

Picture 5:  Another example of severe “high-order-damage.”

 

Picture 6.  Unexploded reddish-grey nano-thermite chips found in all four of the WTC dust samples.

Source Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31

  • Sun, May 04, 2014 - 08:44pm

    #6
    rrevard

    rrevard

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 03 2009

    Posts: 1

    count placeholder

    NIST

Do they address the reported fact that no one who worked in that building showed up for work that fateful day?

  • Mon, May 12, 2014 - 06:36am

    #7

    RNcarl

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 13 2008

    Posts: 179

    count placeholder

    Sick Feeling Again

Thanks Sandpuppy!

I mentioned WTC Bldg. 7 in reply to another post because things, "just don't add up" with building 7. Different topic about the Deep State but the information presented here makes the point of Chris' post on the Deep State. Actually, several things don't add up about that day. But I won't go into it now. Let's just say, the information about how bldg. 7 collapsed is the "smoking gun" that is needed to get folks to think about all the events on that day. I just hope that some day before I die, some truth about the events come out.

Who knows, it could have been a, "wake-up-call" given to the financial sector about who really is in charge. Or, it could be just the opposite. The financial sector could have needed a "big event" to cause a correction and got the puppet government to supply one. I prefer the first assumption because the "attack" was directed toward the financial sector. And somehow, I feel the Deep State can be changed. The festering greed of the financial sector cannot.

I do understand why folks just can't come to terms with what really happened that day. Heck, I don't even really want to think about what I see now with my own eyes could be the truth. After all, free falling 47 story buildings that look exactly like controlled demolitions and a "disappearing plane" that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon, leave too many unanswered questions.The answers to those questions and more is what is greatly disturbing. It shakes the very foundation about our trust in The U.S. governmental system.

After all, this country is where folks come to escape tyranny. The U.S. is where one can come and feel safe that the government does NOT wage war on it's own citizens. Here is where freedom from oppression was "born" over 200 years ago. However, the evidence, well, the evidence isn't so clear. Because, if what we see with our own eyes and feel in ours collective gut is true… Then my friends, we all have a great big problem. Or is it a predicament? If it is, a predicament and not a problem, then JHK was right, we should just tend our gardens because there is no solution.

It is an exciting time to be alive.

C.

  • Mon, May 12, 2014 - 12:07pm

    #8

    Bankers Slave

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2012

    Posts: 513

    count placeholder

    You are right

its a problem as opposed to a predicament. There are many so called conspiracy theories out there, just like 9/11 popularly used to be, that need to be revisited. 

It would appear that Hollywood has been dropping the hints regarding the twin towers terrorist target for many years, in fact right back to the 1980s. There has been so much of it that I cannot put it down to being just pure coincidence or accident. Nothing appears in the movies by accident, that's how they tell us what they are going to do before they do it. They cannot help themselves its all part of being a control freak of megalomaniac proportions. 

  • Tue, May 13, 2014 - 01:26pm

    #9

    Boomer41

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 30 2008

    Posts: 112

    count placeholder

    Great Review

Thanks, Sand Puppy, for an excellent review of Griffin's book.

By now it should be obvious to any sentient person that 9/11 was not what the official story would have us believe. Exactly what it was that happened on that day is something we need to find out.

Many people I talk with on the subject (usually the older group) refuse to believe that explosives could have been used. Because, they say, "Such things cannot happen in America" or "Too many people would have been involved and it couldn't be kept secret". (The Manhattan Project was kept secret with many more people involved.)

Younger people are generally more skeptical and have no problem believing it was an inside job. Many of them point to the total lack of forensic investigation – Instead of the structural steel from the three buildings being scrupulously examined to determine the root cause of the failure, or re-assembled (as in the case of an airplane crash) all of the steel from all three buildings was promptly shipped to China as scrap.

As an engineer, I have no doubt that all three buildings were demolished. The evidence is overwhelming. http://www.ae911truth.org/ No steel frame, high rise building anywhere in the world has ever collapsed due to fire, despite some very spectacular fires which engulfed the whole structure. Nevertheless, we are expected to believe that three such collapses on the same day are somehow normal.

Of course, the greater implications of controlled demolition are truly profound. What we need is a new, unbiased, independent investigation into the whole 9/11 event.

  • Tue, May 13, 2014 - 09:10pm

    #10
    leweke1

    leweke1

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 18 2008

    Posts: 16

    count placeholder

    The Elephant in WTC7

I remember watching WTC7 burn most of the fateful day.  Getting explosives to work after cooking in a fire all day would have been a true engineering miracle, since even the best degrade very quickly (HNS ~1 hour) at >500F.  Protecting explosives from the heat (probably exceeding 1000F) would have required a massive effort at heat shielding which would have made everything quite conspicuous, no?  And the sequenced explosives required for an implosion are all controlled with precise delays initiated through lengths of detonating cord…protecting thousands of feet of det-cord from the heat would have been impossible.  And all of those explosions would have been very visible with the smoke and flame present…note video of an explosion in a burning house yesterday (5/12/14).  It was pretty obvious looking at the flame and fire that an explosion had occurred.  So, no I don't buy the propositions that explosives brought down any of the towers, but find it completely normal that their own weights eventually exceeded the load capacity of the structures undergoing progressive damage.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 595 total)

Login or Register to post comments