Thursday, September 11 2008 - Other Important News
The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak
Kevin R. Ryan
In a famous book by Antoine de Saint Exupery, a little prince from another planet asks the narrator to draw a sheep. After several unsatisfactory attempts, the narrator simply draws a box and tells the little prince that the sheep is in the box. The little prince then exclaims — "That is exactly the way I wanted it!"1
Just so, the Bush Administration asked its scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for an explanation as to what happened at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11. In response to this request, NIST drew up a series of fanciful stories over a period of years, each story differing from the previous one. Finally, after seven long years, NIST published its last story for WTC 7 by simply saying, in effect: "The explanation is in our computer."2
As expected, however, this explanation in a box leaves much to be desired for those of us who prefer to live in reality, instead of in a fictional world. On the other hand, we are learning something from NIST with this new report, and that is that when government scientists begin working for a political agenda above all else, there is no limit to the extent of deception that they will engage in. We also know that those who have produced the NIST WTC reports must now assume personal responsibility for the ongoing 9/11 Wars, and the millions of deaths that will result from those wars.
NIST begins with a few little white lies, and never looks back
NIST unveiled its WTC 7 report by making a new diversionary claim that it worked only three years on the investigation. But, to the contrary, we know that NIST began its work in August 2002 and decoupled its WTC 7 report in June 2004, after creating hundreds of pages of detailed reports for WTC 7.3 The investigation ostensibly began anew in September 2005, after the report for the towers was sputtered out. Since then — other than for several "responses to FAQs" on the report for the towers — NIST has focused entirely on WTC 7. This means that, in full, NIST worked on its final explanation for the destruction of WTC 7 for at least five years, not three.
However, as the reader will see, NIST did learn from its experience in deceiving the public about the towers. One way in which NIST learned to avoid criticism was to pretend that it had considered alternative theories. In its presentation on the draft WTC 7 report, NIST claimed, "We were very open to alternative theories." But that claim could be seen as true only if one turned a blind eye to many facts indicating the exact opposite was true, including the following:
Another important lesson NIST learned from its report on the towers was this: if you perform actual physical tests to support a politically motivated conclusion, those tests had better support that conclusion. The physical tests NIST and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) performed for the investigation on the towers did not support the predetermined conclusions that NIST, and its bosses at the Bush Administration, sought to maintain.6
NIST avoided that problem with the WTC 7 investigation by simply not performing any physical tests to support its theory. Instead of throwing a few beams and columns together and heating them to see what might happen, NIST built its final story on nothing but computer models that it said took excruciatingly long periods of time to process ("…a 25 s analysis took up to 8 weeks to complete.")
In other words, for NIST, avoiding problems means avoiding reality.
Oh, forget about the diesel fuel
In its new draft report based entirely on computer models, NIST contradicts its previous statements that suggested the building was destroyed due to fires caused by diesel fuel. This was despite the fact that, after several years of investigation, NIST still believed that the diesel fuel had made all the difference. NIST used its partner, Popular Mechanics, to communicate the diesel fuel theory.
In a March 2005 article that was later expanded into a farcical book, Popular Mechanics (PM), claimed "investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel." Sivaraj Shyam Sunder, the leading deceiver for NIST and PM, expounded on this claim by stating "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."7
But like the previous explanations for the towers (remember the pancake theory?), the final explanation for WTC 7 bears no resemblance to the earlier versions. NIST simply states in its new report that the diesel fuel played no role in the destruction of WTC 7.
Oddly enough, no one in the major media seemed to notice. Even the New York Times, which had published scores of articles referring to WTC 7 and diesel fuel since 9/11, played along with this complete reversal without skipping a beat. Reporter Eric Lipton, who previously had written of WTC 7's "disastrous blaze fed by diesel fuel", simply suggested that NIST's Sunder, in explaining his new theory, was being very patient with the "conspiracy theorists".8
Oh, and forget about the damage caused by the falling towers, too
For years, we were also told that WTC 7 fell because 25% of the building was "scooped out" by falling debris from the towers. This completely unsupported claim came from a media driven exaggeration of another statement Sunder made to his supporters at PM. Sunder claimed that "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."9
Of course, one third of one quarter only makes one twelfth, not 25%, but that was not important. As with the other official stories and exaggerated media versions of them, everyone knew that the goal for NIST and the Bush Administration was to make people stop thinking about it. That's probably why so many of the official/media legends centered on food analogies. There was the pancake theory, and licorice steel, and the donut (WTC 6). And as with those, the "scooped out" phrase sent the blood running quickly from the brain to the stomach in anticipation of an ice cream treat. Celebrities like Denis Leary and Alan Colmes just ate it up and regurgitated it, as did Matthew Rothschild, Manuel Garcia, and every other pretentious supporter of the official conspiracy theory.
It turns out that the "scooped out" nonsense was just more speculative deception. NIST knew that it would never be able to support such a claim with real science, as even the simplest evaluations disputed it. It was evident that the debris pattern at Ground Zero was incredibly asymmetrical, and NIST probably didn't want to have to explain that anyway. But no one would believe that falling debris had "scooped out" so much of WTC 7, while the buildings immediately adjacent to WTC 7 incurred essentially no damage at all from the falling towers. Not even Larry could be so lucky.
Additionally, it was clear that such extreme, asymmetric damage would have caused an asymmetric collapse, not a straight down free-fall speed collapse as we see in the videos. In the end, NIST gave up on the "scooped out" explanation, stating:
"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii
For those who were looking for easy answers, this new story means that the blood must leak back to the brain after all. But NIST is hoping that, by now, we've forgotten how to think altogether.
Molten metal? What molten metal?
NIST, in its final report on WTC 7, ignored all of the evidence relating to molten metal, even though numerous reliable witnesses spoke of the presence of molten metal at Ground Zero. These witnesses included Richard Garlock, a structural engineer at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, an engineering firm involved in the design of the towers and the clean up of the site, who said "Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running."10
The witnesses to molten metal also included University of California, Berkeley engineering professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, who was the first scientist given access to the steel at ground zero. Dr. Astaneh-Asl referred to the WTC steel he found as "kind of melted."11 Years later, when asked again about his experience he clarified, "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."12
There are many other reports of molten metal at ground zero, including quite a few from those who support the Bush Administration's ever-changing fire-induced collapse theories. There are also photos supporting the reports of molten metal.13 But NIST continues to ignore all of this evidence in its new report.
Paper thin steel and sulfidation? What paper thin steel and sulfidation?
Since the WTC report from the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) came out in 2002, the most intriguing aspect of the official stories given was the problem that the New York Times called "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."14 This mystery referred to the extremely thinned pieces of steel discovered by FEMA investigators, and also by Astaneh-Asl.15 These samples were found to exhibit sulfidation, and evidence of a eutectic formation, that could not be explained by any of the "fire-wise" professors.The fire-wise professors originally said this about the mystery, after seven to eight months of investigation.
"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. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."16
But that "detailed investigation" never got done, it turns out. And although NIST never mentioned any of this in its new WTC 7 report, Sivaraj Shyam Sunder did have to answer a question about it in his recent press conference. Sunder simply said that those fire-wise professors had thought more about it, and told the BBC that it wasn't a mystery after all.
We can be sure that those professors did think more about it. But without the detailed study they originally called for, the deepest mystery remains officially unsolved.
Explosive thermite? What explosive thermite?
An actual explanation for the sulfidation and extreme thinning of steel has been offered by independent investigators, and is fully consistent with the alternative theory that NIST has avoided all these years. The thermite reaction, available in several useful variations for the purposes of cutting steel, can explain this thinning and sulfidation quite readily.
The thermite hypothesis for the WTC was first detailed by Derrick Grimmer of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE).17 This hypothesis was later expanded into an experimentally supported theory by Professor Steven Jones.18
When asked about thermite in the WTC 7 press conference, Sunder pretended that NIST was not aware of the explosive forms of this chemical mixture, called super-thermite or nano-thermite. Instead, Sunder claimed that thermite could not be applied adequately in order to serve the purpose of a deceptive demolition. Sunder's answer, apart from being vague and unsupported, is also in direct contradiction to the fact that a number of the NIST WTC investigation leaders had expert knowledge of nano-thermites, and that such materials can be sprayed onto surfaces like steel.19
NIST's new report ignores many other important pieces of evidence that support the alternative theory. This evidence includes the many witnesses to explosions, the many people who were warned that the building was coming down, and the prediction, by several major media outlets, that the building was coming down well before it actually did.20
As we see with the explanation that took NIST five years to provide, no one could have possibly predicted anything like it.
"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery"
If the public reaction to this report were not so important to the future of all people around the world, this statement by NIST would be laughable. The destruction of WTC 7, never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report at all, was clearly a great mystery to government investigators since 9/11. But more importantly, after several years of investigation, it was still a great mystery to NIST and Sivaraj Shyam Sunder.
In fact, Sunder reported to New York Magazine in 2006 that "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7."21 That statement is quite different from what he says today, of course. When interviewed by the Associated Press immediately after presenting this new report, Sunder glibly said, "The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," adding, "The obvious stares you in the face."22
Let's take a look at what is suddenly so obvious about this new story, remembering that no actual scientific experiments are behind it, other than computer simulations that we will likely never be allowed to examine.
Thermal expansion, not weakening, softening, shortening or sagging
In NIST's computer, steel can do just about anything. We saw that in the report
for the towers, where we were told that similar computerized office fires made
floors sag, columns shorten, and large quantities of steel
"Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder connecting Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor."
With this summary statement, NIST begins its explanation with a sleight of hand. The "initial local failure" is not a column buckling according to this new story, but is the displacement of a girder by means of the thermal expansion of up to five floor beams. It is there that we must begin our analysis of NIST's new story, and if that is not realistic, then none of the remaining explanation for WTC 7 is realistic.
We should begin with a fact described in one of NIST's earlier reports on WTC 7.
NIST now contradicts this earlier finding, in order to support the new story.
For the thermal expansion story, this presence of shear studs holding the concrete floor to the beams and girders is important. The studs were 0.75 in x 5 in long, and were positioned every 1 to 2 ft along the beam or girder, according to NCSTAR 1-1. There were 28 of these studs for each of the five beams that supposedly expanded. NIST deceptively played down all those shear studs in its recent presentation, where a simple diagram falsely suggested there were only three studs for each beam.
For the allegedly displaced girder, according to NIST's first report there would have been a similar number of shear studs, placed at intervals of 1 to 2 feet, for a total of at least 22 studs. But NIST's new report removes all of these in order to make it easier for the girder to be pushed out. Some of NIST's other diagrams indicate that the girder was fastened to column 79 with only two seat bolts. There were, in fact, two seat bolts and two clip bolts for each girder/column connection. Additionally, NIST unconvincingly tells us that it "found no evidence that the girders or beams in WTC 7 were welded to the seats" (NCSTAR 1-9, p 348). Of course, by now we know what NIST means when it says it "found no evidence."
This is what the basic premise of NIST's new story looks like, if we assume there was no seat welding, and all the shear studs have been removed, or have broken away from, the beams and the girder.
NCSTAR 1-9, p 346
As we can see, it appears NIST is telling us that the loose beams (only one shown) deflected the loose girder a distance of several feet. Even if we believe that WTC 7 was built in such a shoddy manner, is this hypothesis realistic?
First, note that thermal expansion is not a new phenomenon, and structural steel was not just invented for use at the WTC. Such effects have been a possibility in all of the thousands of other situations in which structural steel was heated throughout history. So what enormous new difference did thermal expansion make for WTC 7?
The floor beams that NIST is speaking of, that supposedly pushed the girder between column 79 and column 44 completely out of place, were each about 52 feet, or 15.8 meters, in length. The equation for linear thermal expansion is as follows:
ΔL = α Lo ΔT
That is, the increase in length of the object considered is a function of the product of the coefficient of linear expansion (α), the original length, and the change in temperature. The coefficient of linear expansion for steel is about 0.000012 m/m/°C.
Using the equation above, the beams could have expanded 0.019 m for every 100°C increase in temperature. Remember also that any thermal linear expansion would have been acting on the external columns of WTC 7's east wall as well, because thermal expansion does not affect just one end of a beam. Whatever distance the beams pushed NIST's critical girder, the same distance in bowing out of the east wall of WTC 7 would have had to occur, unless WTC 7 was a very unstable structure to begin with. Therefore, half of the total expansion length (0.01 m) would have affected NIST's critical girder for every 100°C increase in temperature.
For NIST's new story, those floor beams would have had to not only expand linearly, but also break 28 high-strength shear studs, 2 seat bolts, 2 clip bolts (and seat welds), and then cause the buckling of a gigantic girder (which also had 22 shear studs) before the beams themselves buckled or even weakened. This is quite the opposite of what NIST says happened in the towers, where the official story is that the floors sagged dramatically. In WTC7, NIST now says the floors did not sag or weaken a bit, but remained fiercely rigid as high-temperature linear expansion caused them to wreak havoc on the surrounding structure.
Highly exaggerated temperatures leave beams rigid
To accomplish the linear expansion, the beams first had to get very hot. NIST says that its computer models suggest that "some sections" of these beams reached 600°C.
"Due to the effectiveness of the SFRM, the highest column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300°C (570°F), and only on the east side of the building did the floor beams reach or exceed about 600°C." NCSTAR 1A, p 19
"The temperatures of some sections of the beams supporting Floors 8, 12, 13, and 14 exceeded 600°C." NCSTAR 1A, p 48
These extremely high steel temperatures would most certainly have resulted in the weakening of the beams, once the shear studs had been lost, allowing the thermal expansion to be relieved through downward sagging. This fact is supported by the experimental data produced by the Cardington tests, described in NCSTAR 1-9 (section 8.4.3), where much shorter floor beam spans experienced significant sagging. Therefore, this rigid beam linear expansion hypothesis is not realistic.
In any case, although NIST does not state it clearly in the new report, a 575°C increase in temperature would have caused the girder end of the beams to experience a maximum of 2.2 inches of deflection. And if it were only a "section," for example only a third of a beam length, then the increase from thermal expansion would be correspondingly smaller (or 0.7 inches). This makes NIST's story of all those bolts and studs breaking in unison, and that critical girder buckling, quite unbelievable.
But how did the beams reach 600°C in the first place? In the real world, this would have required very hot fires for a very long time. In NIST's computer, of course, this was not a problem. As with the report for the towers, these cyber-space investigators only needed to fudge a few numbers, like the thermal conductivity of the materials involved. Structural steel has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/m/K, which means that any heat applied is easily wicked away. But if that value were set to zero, or near zero, any heat applied would allow the temperature to rise dramatically at the point of application.
"The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used." NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20
"The interior walls [including insulated steel columns] were assumed to have the properties of gypsum board [0.5 W/m/K]." NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52
"Although the floor slab actually consisted of a metal deck topped with a concrete slab…the thermal properties of the entire floor slab were assumed to be that of concrete [1.0 W/m/K]." NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52
Fudging the thermal conductivity values, and extrapolating the localized computer results across vast sections of the building, appears to be how NIST scientists convinced themselves that they could promote the high steel temperatures.
But also note that raising those five floor beams to a temperature of 600°C would require an enormous amount of energy, far more than was available from the burning of the office furnishings underneath the floor beams. Of course, NIST has not had any trouble selling such leaps of imagination before, as its media sponsors don't ask detailed questions and NIST does not discuss its reports with independent investigators.
Brief office fires in an environment designed for fire resistance
Further problems for NIST's new story result from admissions NIST has made about the state of the fires in the building, and the design of the structure. NIST admits that the fires in WTC 7 were typical office fires, and that the fires could not move from floor to floor.
NIST also admits that the building was designed to comply with New York City Building Code, requiring fire resistance of 3 hours for columns and 2 hours for floors.
"The instructions to the bidders for the WTC 7 job were to bid on a 3 h rating for the columns and a 2 h rating for the fluted steel decking and floor support steel, which corresponded to the more stringent fire resistance requirements for Type 1B (unsprinklered) construction." NCSTAR 1A, p 7
"Private inspectors found that the applied SFRM thicknesses were consistent with these values." NCSTAR 1A, p 7 (also see NCSTAR 1-9, table 8-1, p 340)
Add to these facts that NIST admitted in their December 2007 advisory committee meeting that the fuel load could only support 20 minutes of fire in any given location.
"Question: …fire moved every 20 minutes; essentially it started and stopped every 20 minutes, so if you do not have fuel in WTC 7, how could fires burn for as long as they had and taken out this major structure that had good fireproofing?"
"Answer (Sunder): The fires moved from location to location, meaning that at any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed. While the combustibles at a location were being consumed, the fire front would be progressing to adjacent combustibles."23
For floors 11 and 12, NIST increased this estimated fuel load from 4 lb/ft2 to 6.4 lb/ft2, presumably giving a new maximum fire time of 32 minutes. Even so, how then did NIST come up with fire times of 3.5 to 4 hours?
"However, it appeared likely the critical damage state occurred between 3.5 h and 4 h." NCSTAR 1A, p 32
What could possibly have been burning, under those beams, for another three hours?
Without answers to these questions, we must assume that NIST is now suggesting specific corporate culpability for the failure of WTC 7.
Basically, NIST is saying Underwriters Laboratories is to blame
To sum up, steel components that were certified to withstand hours of fire failed in typical office fires lasting a maximum of 32 minutes in any given location. That means that there must have been negligence, or extremely poor performance, on the part of those who ensured the fire resistance of the structural components.
With the report on the towers, NIST pretended that it was a mystery as to who tested the steel components for fire resistance. But, in fact, it wasn't actually that much of a mystery unless you asked UL while the whole country was watching.24 But for WTC 7, NIST comes right out and says that UL was the firm that provided the fire resistance information for the building.
"According to the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Fire Resistance Directory (1983), these ratings required a thickness of 7/8 in. of Monokote MK-5 to be applied to the heavy columns, 1 7/8 in. to be applied to the lighter columns, ½ in. to be applied to the beams, and 3/8 in. to be applied to the bottom of the metal deck." NCSTAR 1A, p 7
That's one good reason why UL is not listed as being part of the WTC 7 investigation. Having the company that was responsible for establishing the fire resistance of the building participate in the politically motivated investigation into how the building failed from fire might just be a conflict of interest.
The problem NIST and UL have now is that confirming UL's involvement in the WTC 7 design, when the official story is centered only on failure by fire, could lead to greater problems for UL. It is clear that UL must now answer for how the structural components of WTC 7 failed catastrophically, in typical office fires, when UL's Fire Resistance Directory reported that these components would resist fire damage for much longer.
The final WTC 7 story and how it was predicted
After years of talking about diesel fuel fires and damage from the towers being the causes of the near free-fall collapse of WTC 7, and then acting as if they just couldn't get a handle on it, NIST now has a new "obvious" story. The new story is based on a "new phenomenon" of thermal expansion whereby fully insulated steel beams are exposed to temperatures of 600°C in only 32 minutes. Believe it or not, NIST actually says this happened in only a few seconds (NCSTAR 1-9, table 8-2, p 353).
This extreme temperature, which did not weaken the beams at all, as would have happened in WTC 1 or WTC 2, broke all the shear studs, seat bolts and clip bolts on all the beams of the east wall of WTC 7. The beams then expanded linearly, pushing the girder between column 79 and column 44 by a maximum of 2.2 inches, causing that critical girder to buckle and fall away from columns 79 and 44.
We have seen that this "initial local failure" is not realistic. This is because the fire times could not possibly have caused the high steel temperatures cited, the steel would not have remained rigid if those temperatures had been reached, and the very slight thermal expansion would not have been great enough to cause the extensive girder damage imagined by NIST.
From that tenuous position, we are led to believe that the one fallen girder caused one column to buckle and that meant the total destruction of this 47-story building in a matter of seconds.
But who could have predicted all of this? NIST admits that this is a rare phenomenon that it had to work hard to prove.
"Failure of a floor beam in fire is a rare event, and, indeed, there have been many building fires that have not resulted in even local failures of the floor system. The challenge was to determine if a fire-induced floor system failure could occur in WTC 7 under an ordinary building contents fire." NCSTAR 1-9, p 330
What geniuses knew that this new phenomenon of the thermal expansion of several floor beams in unison would cause this one hair-trigger girder to bring the entire building down several hours before it actually occurred?
Many people did, including at least 60 fire department employees, more than 25 medical and emergency workers, and both CNN and the BBC.25
And if you believe all that…
NIST topped off this most ridiculous of explanations with a truly bizarre consideration of a "hypothetical blast event."
First, NIST asks us to assume that it wasn't a planned demolition. We are led to believe that no one would have placed explosive charges around the entire building to cause what appears to everyone who sees it as a completely symmetrical and purely vertical near free-fall implosion.
On the contrary, NIST says that if WTC 7 was to have been a demolition, it would have to begin with an assumption that most of their new story is correct. That is, anybody wanting to bring the building down in a demolition event would have obviously placed one gigantic bomb under that one all important column – column 79.
Therefore, let's play along with this dishonest pretense and see what NIST says that would do.
A "Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing the critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse." NCSTAR 1-A, p xxxii
Essentially, NIST is saying that WTC 7 was not a demolition because a big boom would make a big sound. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the culmination of seven years of Bush Science.
No failure of imagination here
The 9/11 Commission told us that the attacks on September 11th succeeded ultimately because of a "failure of imagination." NIST will never be accused of that kind of failure, as its new WTC 7 report is nothing but imaginary tripe.
This new story contradicts the previous major claims by NIST, ignores the most important of the existing evidence, produces no scientific test results to support itself, and is so obviously false on its face that not even a fictional character from another planet would believe it. Fires that could only last 20 to 30 minutes lasted 4 hours (what was burning?). Imaginary temperatures that, according to NIST would have easily weakened the same steel in the towers, left beams fully rigid so that they could push one girder a full 2.2 inches, somehow breaking numerous bolts and studs in unison, as well as buckling the girder, before the beams themselves were affected in any way. Suddenly this one girder failure caused numerous floors to collapse, one hair-trigger "switch" column to buckle, and the whole building to fall in a total of 8 seconds.
NIST tells us that most of these unprecedented, illogical and thoroughly fantastic events were happening within the box of WTC 7 itself, before we saw anything. Of course, they have absolutely no evidence for any of these things happening in the real world. But by now we know that it doesn't matter. The Bush scientists only need to keep their bosses' sadistic political story viable for a few more months.
References and footnotes
1 Antoine de Saint Exupéry, Le Petit Prince, Harcourt Brace & Co, 1943
2 NIST, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST website,http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
3 NIST reports prior to September 2005, that focused solely on WTC 7, include these:
Early NIST reports that covered WTC 7, as well as the towers, include the following:
4 James Gourley, "Appeal Filed with NIST, Pursuant to Earlier Request for Correction," Journal of 9/11 Studies, November 2007, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf
5 Mainstream scientific articles published in support of the alternative theories for WTC 7, include the following:
Steven Jones, Frank Legge, et al, "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction," The Open Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 2 Issue 1, http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM
Kevin Ryan, James Gourley, and Steven Jones, "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials," The Environmentalist, August 2008, DOI: 10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4, http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
7 Popular Mechanics editors, Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report, March 2005, http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
8 Eric Lipton, "Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says," New York Times, August 22, 2008; James Glanz and Eric Lipton, "A NATION CHALLENGED: GROUND ZERO; Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall Of 3rd Tower," New York Times, March 2, 2002
9 Popular Mechanics editors, Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
10 Public Broadcasting Corporation (PBS), America Rebuilds: A year at ground zero, http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html
12 Online Newshour, Collapse of Overpass in California Becomes Lesson in Construction, May 10, 2007, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html
14 James Glanz and Eric Lipton, "A Search for Clues In Towers' Collapse; Engineers Volunteer to Examine Steel Debris Taken to Scrapyards," The New York Times, February 2, 2002
15 Robert Sanders, "Report from ground zero: Engineer studies World Trade Center collapse for clues to failure," The Berkeleyan, October 3, 2001, http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html
16 FEMA BPAT report, Appendix C, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
18 Steven E. Jones, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?," Journal of 9/11 Studies, September 2006, http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf
Steve E. Jones et al, "Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction," Journal of 9/11 Studies, January 2008, http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
19 Kevin Ryan, The top ten connections between NIST and nano-thermites, Journal of 9/11 Studies, July 2008, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
20 For the 60 FDNY reports, see Graeme MacQueen, "Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories," Journal of 9/11 Studies, January 2008. For the warning given to medical responders, see History Commons (9/11 Timeline), http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a430wtc7evacuated. For CNN and BBC, see WTC7.net, http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html.
22 The Associated Press, "Report: Fire, not bombs, leveled WTC 7 building," August 21, 2008, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-08-21-wtc-nist_N.htm
23 NIST Advisory Committee meeting minutes, December 18th, 2007, http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf
24 Kevin Ryan, "Three Years Later: Another Look At Three Claims from UL," 911truth.org http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070919215921873
25 For the 60 FDNY reports, see Graeme MacQueen, "Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories," Journal of 9/11 Studies, January 2008. For the warning given to medical responders, see History Commons (9/11 Timeline), http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a430wtc7evacuated. For CNN and BBC, see WTC7.net, http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author, who is solely responsible for its content, and do not necessarily reflect those of 911Truth.org. 911Truth.org will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
|home | about us | contact | research | grassroots | calendar | links | search|