By George Washington
Debunking NIST’s conclusions about WTC 7 is as easy as sharpened fish in a barrel.
NIST lamely tried to explain the symmetrically tumble as follows:
WTC 7’s collapse, noticed from the extraneous (most videos were taken from the north), did seem to tumble almost regularly as a singular unit. This occurred since the interior failures that took place did not means the extraneous framing to destroy until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior building framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled divided from the extraneous frame. There were clues that inner repairs was holding place, before to the downward transformation of the extraneous frame, such as when the easterly penthouse fell downward into the building and windows pennyless out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric coming of the downward tumble of the WTC 7 was essentially due to the larger rigidity and strength of its extraneous support relations to the interior framing.1
Watch the video below:
NIST can’t have it both ways. If the extraneous support was so unbending and strong, then it should have stopped the collapse, or – at the very slightest – we would have seen a bowing outcome where extensive hostile forces were battling any other for prevalence in last the instruction of the fall. See also this.
In genuine life, the thick constructional beams and “stiff [and strong]” extraneous support used in the building should have fast stopped any prejudiced collapse, unless the support columns were all blown. At the very worst, we should see a 1 or 2 building prejudiced collapse.
NIST pronounced that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than freefall speed. But it collapsed alot faster than it would have if the constructional supports were not all blown divided at the same instant. 40% slower isn’t very considerable — that’s like arguing that a stone descending by petrify 40% slower than a stone descending by the air is ideally normal.
Again, because did the building tumble at all, given that the thick constructional beams should have fast stopped any prejudiced collapse?
Fires Knocked Down Steel-Frame Buildings
NIST pronounced fires alone brought down Building 7, but other bureau fires have burned longer and hotter but causing collapse.
No Explosive Sounds
NIST also said:
“No blast sounds were listened on the audio marks of video recordings during the tumble of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.”
What about this, this, this, this, this and this?
Moreover, as discussed below, high-tech explosives don’t indispensably make the same shrill “booms” that dynamite make.
High-Tech Explosive Residues
And because were there residues for high-tech explosives at belligerent 0 (and see this)?
Molten and Partially Evaporated Steel
And what about the pools of fiery steel at belligerent 0 for months? And because was the at and under the belligerent at the site of WTC 7 as prohibited as the belligerent under WTC 1 and 2?
And the New York Times wrote that partly EVAPORATED steel beams were found at WTC 7. But normal bureau and diesel fires are not NEARLY prohibited adequate to evaporate steel. Hydrocarbon fires fueled by diesel (which was apparently stored at WTC 7) and normal bureau materials can't evaporate steel. Steel does not evaporate unless it is exhilarated to at slightest 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Everyone agrees that fires from required building fires are thousands of degrees cooler than that.
And because didn’t NIST residence the apparent pre-knowledge (and see this) by everybody around and good in allege that 7 was going to come down?
And because didn’t NIST residence what these experts say?:
- The former conduct of the Fire Science Division of the supervision group which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s heading fire scholarship researchers and reserve engineers, a Ph.D. in automatic engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an eccentric examination of the World Trade Center Twin Tower tumble investigation. “I wish that there would be a counterpart examination of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I consider all the annals that NIST has fabricated should be archived. we would really like to see someone else take a demeanour at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire indicate of view. … we consider the central end that NIST arrived at is questionable.
- Two professors of constructional engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) pronounced that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by tranquil dispersion (translation here).
- Kamal S. Obeid, constructional engineer, with a masters grade in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
“Photos of the steel, justification about how the buildings collapsed, the unaccountable tumble of WTC 7, justification of thermite in the waste as good as several other red flags, are utterly discouraging indications of good designed and tranquil demolition”
- Ronald H. Brookman, constructional engineer, with a masters grade in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
“Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 tumble true down to the belligerent in about 7 seconds… ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An eccentric examination is fit for all 3 collapses including the flourishing steel samples and the combination of the dust.”
- Graham John Inman, constructional engineer, of London, England, points out:
“WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a outcome of inner fire and outmost debris. NO craft hit this building. This is the only case of a steel support building collapsing by fire in the world. The fire on this building was tiny localized therefore what is the cause?”
- A Dutch dispersion consultant (Danny Jowenko) settled that WTC 7 was imploded
- A distinguished physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) pronounced that the central speculation for because the Twin Towers and universe trade core building 7 collapsed “does not compare the accessible facts” and supports the speculation that the buildings were brought down by tranquil demolition