Did you hear about what NIST said caused WTC 7 to "free fall" down?
The National Institute of Standards and Technology took over from FEMA the task of explaining the destruction of the World Trade Center, it repeatedly delayed its report on WTC 7. In truth, therefore, NIST had worked on its report on WTC 7 for almost six years, not merely three. So there was good reason to suspect that this report had been deliberately delayed for as long as possible.
The final report did not come out until November 2008 when the Bush-Cheney administration was about to leave office.
NIST's WTC 7 report repeatedly committed scientific fraud in the technical sense, as defined by the National Science Foundation.
One type of fraud is falsification, which includes "omitting data." While claiming that it "found no evidence of a . . . controlled demolition event," NIST simply omitted an enormous amount of evidence for that conclusion.
NIST failed to mention any of the reports of explosions just as the building started to come down.
The Swiss-Cheese Steel: One of these was the piece of Swiss-cheese steel reported by the three WPI professors. After describing the erosion of this piece of steel, the professors had said: "A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed.
The New York Times in 2002 called the piece of Swiss-cheese steel recovered from this building "the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,"
NIST's report on Building 7 appeared in 2008, it did not even mention this mysterious piece of steel, let alone explain how it had been produced. NIST even claimed that no recovered steel from WTC 7 had been identified, because the steel used in this building, unlike the steel used in the Twin Towers, "did not contain . . . identifying characteristics."
Melted Iron: Deutsche Bank, which had a building close to the World Trade Center that had been contaminated with dust, hired the RJ Lee Group, a scientific research organization, to prove to its insurance company that the dust contaminating its building was not ordinary building dust, as its insurance company claimed. The RJ Lee Group said in its final (2004) report, was "[s]pherical iron . . . particles," and this meant that iron had "melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."
The RJ Lee reports thereby provided additional evidence that temperatures had been reached that significantly exceeded those that could have been produced by fire.
Melted Molybdenum: Another study was carried out by scientists at the US Geological Survey. Besides also finding the spherical iron particles, these scientists found that something had melted molybdenum42 which has an extremely high melting point: 4,753°F (2,623°C).
Nanothermite: A peer-reviewed report by University of Copenhagen chemist Niels Harrit and several co-authors, including physicist Steven Jones and chemist Kevin Ryan, showed that the WTC dust contained unreacted nanothermite. Unlike ordinary thermite, which is an incendiary, nanothermite is a high explosive.
However, given the standard guidelines for the investigation of building fires, NIST should have tested the WTC dust for signs of incendiaries, such as ordinary thermite (including thermate), and explosives, such as nanothermite. NIST said it had not.
Any assertion that the building did come down in free fall would not be consistent with physical principles meaning the laws of physics.
NIST's final report, which came out in November 2008, it admitted free fall. Dividing the building's descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration (free fall) for approximately 2.25 seconds." In its August 2008 draft, in which it said that the collapse occurred 40 percent slower than free fall. The NIST says the 18 floor/story building/world trade center seven, fell down in 5.4 seconds, this is false,
NIST's admission that Building 7 came down in free fall for over two seconds should, therefore, have been front-page news.
The upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance.
Controlled demolition which could have produced a free-fall collapse by causing all 82 columns to fail simultaneously. "Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.
And with this implicit admission that the collapses were examples of controlled demolition, NIST undermined the al-Qaeda theory of 9/11. Why?
For one thing, the straight-down nature of the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 means that the buildings were subjected to the type of controlled demolition known as "implosion," which is, in the words of a controlled demolition website, "by far the trickiest type of explosive project," which "only a handful of blasting companies in the world . . . possess enough experience . . . to perform." Al-Qaeda terrorists would not have had this kind of expertise.
A third problem is that foreign terrorists could not have obtained access to the buildings for all the hours it would have taken to plant incendiaries and explosives. Only insiders could have done this
"Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST . . . stated that WTC 7 met all New York City codes. Yet, WTC 7 is the first steel high-rise building of traditional construction in the United States -- and the world, to completely collapse as a result of fire. According to . . . Dr. Sunder, "there were no flaws with the construction of the building."
If we are now to believe that any skyscraper is subject to total collapse from fire, why isn't NIST emphasizing the impact on EXISTING buildings?
The North Tower's collapse at 10:28 am, no flames are visible in the WTC 7 building, as NIST admits, until after noon, and on some floors there is no photographic evidence of fire until 3:40 PM or even later.
This makes now sense! Fires should have happened immediately after derby from the Twin Towers hit WTC7, unless someone started the fire to build a cover story for the collapsing.
Hess thereby reported a mid-morning explosion in WTC 7.
Michael Hess, New York City's corporation counsel. While on his way back to City Hall, Hess was stopped for an interview at 11:57 that morning, during which he said:
"I was up in the emergency management center on the twenty-third floor [of WTC 7], and when all the power went out in the building, another gentleman and I walked down to the eighth floor [sic] where there was an explosion and we were trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke, all around us, for about an hour and a half. But the New York Fire Department . . . just came and got us out."7
As of January 2010, over 1,000 architects and engineers have signed our petition demanding a real investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.
1,060+ Engineers and Architects
Vice President Walter Mondale
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, JD
US. Senator Max Cleland
Former US Senator Mike Gravel - AK
Gen. Wesley Clark
Rep. Curt Weldon
Major General Albert Stubblebine
Richard Falk, a United Nations investigator of human rights
Burt Hall Former Group Director, US- GAO
Paul Harrington Former State Representatives, New Hampshire
Dieter Deiseroth, Judge, Federal Administrative Court, (one of Germany's five Supreme Courts)
Lies told by Bush and the boys to get us into invading Iraq.
And my posting about the Six fake terrorism warnings THREAT LEVELS.
52. We believe that US Rep. Polosi and the other seven Congressmen who were brief that the US was using cruel and unusual treatment and/or water-boarding of detainees, are guilty of conspiracy to torture.
53. We believe all the members of Congress who voted for the Resolution Authorizing of Force Against Iraq and Resolution to use force in Afghanistan against terrorists and continued funding of these wars are guilty of the war crimes, of breaches of the peace. And these were unconstitutional "declarations of war".
54. We believe some members of the US Supreme Court is also guilty of being an conspriarcy to commit war crimes because they failed to declare the Iraq and Afghanistan resolutions unconstitutional. This is the second time the US Supreme Court has been an accessory after the fact. They failed to do their duty when they ruled that the Vietnam war was an undeclared war and therefore, unconstitutional, US v. Sisson, 1968. We think we need to impeach those justices on the US Supreme Court who did not do their DUTY of "good Behaviour", in failing to decide what it word "WAR" means, against which NATION vs. a clan of criminals, anywhere on Earth and follow-on nation building, and did Congress fail to do their duty to say "We are at WAR" vs. allowing AWOL Bush to decide HE could say that.