Nist Wtc7 Press Release Thurs. Aug. 21, NIST NCSTAR 1-9 & 1A Options

[dMz]

FWIW, there is a press release and webcast scheduled for 11-noon EDT on Thurs. Aug. 21, 2008.

"The draft WTC 7 investigation report released at the briefing will be open for public comment through noon Eastern Daylight Time on Sept. 15, 2008."

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/calmed/wtc_081808.html

links to:

http://wtc.nist.gov/

[maturin42]

Posted on the web site of my local paper:

If a building falls down in a way never before seen in history, engineers and architects have some explaining to do.

Despite many years of experience with high-rise steel-framed buildings and fires in that type building, no previous example can be found. This morning, 8-21-08, NIST Director of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory stood up on his hind legs and explained how WTC Building 7 fell down. It was ‘fire’ on the lower floors of the building.

That huge explosion you heard on the video didn’t happen. It wasn’t loud enough! I am not kidding. The refutation of the idea that explosives were present and used to bring down Bldg 7 is as follows: If enough explosive were put onto Column 79 (the key column) to cut it, it would have made a lot of noise. The explosions heard by many that presaged the collapse, wasn’t loud enough to be caused by a charge that could have cut that key column. End of explanation. The flows of pyroclastic clouds from the building were a figment of your imagination. Dr. Sunder stands up and tries to make the case that we now have to review our construction standards to cover this phenomenon. The emperor has no clothes, so now we must all strip and wear the same kind of new clothes if you want to live in NIST’s world.

In answer to repeated questions about why they ruled out the controlled demolition scenario, Dr. Sunder explained that it would have taken a lot of explosive to cut through that one main beam. It was the destruction of that one beam that caused the collapse. It happened because of thermal expansion, and he had drawings to “prove” it, showing beams distorting beyond recognition due to the fire.

Infowars reporter is asking a question and they are trying to cut his mike and move on. He wanted to know about the microspheres that appear in all the dust samples from the site, and yet NIST did not look for and miraculously did not find evidence of explosives. They did not retain steel samples.

“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7” is a line from the report posted online by NIST. Notice that forensics have nothing at all to do with the findings. They still did not look at the steel, nor the dust, and, surprisingly, they also ruled out fuel oil from the generators, which had been at the heart of their previous fire-driven hypotheses. The bottom line with Dr. Sunder, in his summary, was that a single column gave way leading to the sudden, catastrophic collapse, and they have the computer model to prove it. Computers are great. If you tweak the parameters enough you can make them do almost anything - or at least SHOW anything. Whether it has anything to do with physics or reality, is another matter entirely.

1340 degree heat persisted in the pile of WTC 7 for weeks after the event, but Dr. Sunder did not address how that could have occurred in an ordinary office material fire. In addition, the severe eutectic corrosion, intergranular melting, and thinning in the steel girders was not explained. This appears in the FEMA report but is not addressed by NIST. Dr. Jones’ findings are similarly ignored.

So, ignore your lying eyes. Even though Danny Jowenko, one of Europe’s most qualified controlled demolition experts says that it is unquestionably controlled demolition, Dr. Sunder says no. It just LOOKS like it. It was just fire. Move along. Nothing to see here!

What a surprise!

NIST’s report can be found here: http://wtc.nist.gov/
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth [ ae911truth.org ] will be doing a detailed critique of the many fallacies contained in this document in their official comments .