The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released its final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center 7 building on Thursday, 6 years after it began its investigation into the collapses of WTC buildings on September 11, 2001.
The symmetrical and rapid collapse of 47-story WTC 7 into its own footprint in what appeared to be an "implosion" like those initiated by demolitions experts to safely bring down buildings has for many years fueled conspiracy theories that the towers were intentionally destroyed, indicating that the attacks of 9/11 were an "inside job."
Adding more intrigue to conspiracy theories, WTC 7 housed offices of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Office of Emergency Management (OEM), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Secret Service.
The NIST report goes a long way toward explaining how WTC 7 might have collapsed due to fire, but in doing so, ironically, also confirms many of the arguments put forward by conspiracy theorists.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency released a report in 2002 that noted, "The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings."
The NIST report likewise notes, "This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires." It adds, "WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. It was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an airplane. The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from those in the towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously. Instead the fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings did not collapse, while WTC 7 succumbed to its fires."
NIST also notes that "the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin", a fact long pointed to as indicative of a cover-up by conspiracy theorists.
The FEMA report speculated as to the possible causes of the collapse, but noted that "confirmation will require additional study and analysis." It stated that "the sequence of the WTC 7 collapse is consistent with an initial failure that occurred internally in the lower floors on the east side of the building." Fires resulted in the building as a result of the impact damage of debris from the collapse of the twin towers. The building's fire suppression system was not sufficient to control the resulting fires on multiple floors.
"In addition," it stated, "the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers." The report reiterated, "It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effective due to the limited water on site, and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day."
The NIST report similarly states that "The decision not to continue evaluating the building and not to fight the fires was made hours before the building collapsed, so no emergency responders were in or near the building when the collapse occurred."
The FEMA report suggested fuel from tanks for emergency generators might have contributed to the fires in the building. Conspiracy theorists have argued that there is no evidence to support this widely propagated theory and that it is in any event an unlikely explanation for the collapse. FEMA itself acknowledged that this is a "hypothesis based on potential rather than demonstrated fact" and that "there is no physical evidence available" to support the theory.
Indeed, the NIST report states that "fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," confirming what conspiracy theorists have argued: that ruptured fuel lines could not have sustained fires long enough or generated enough heat "to raise the temperature of the critical interior column to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness." Nor was any smoke that would have resulted from such fires observed.
FEMA noted in its report that the steel structure was fireproofed to 2 inches, but speculated that "During the course of the day, fires may have exposed various structural elements to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength to the point of causing collapse." NIST contradicts FEMA, reporting thinner layers of fireproofing, and stating that "The installed thickness of the thermal insulation on the floor beams was below that required for unsprinklered or sprinklered buildings, but it is unlikely that the collapse of WTC 7 could have been prevented even if the thickness had been consistent with building code requirements." In other words, WTC 7 was not up to code.
According to the FEMA report, it took 27 seconds from initiation to total collapse. There is no explanation for how they arrived at the starting time, but the report's timeline also notes that from the time video footage shows the first apparent sign of the collapse, the disappearance of the penthouse, it took just seven seconds for the entire structure to fail and completely collapse to the ground. At 186 meters tall, that means WTC 7 collapsed at near free-fall speed.
Conspiracy theorists have long argued that such a rapid collapse demonstrates that demolition explosives must have been used to take out major load-bearing columns. A collapse initiating at one point, they argue, would have resulted in a less symmetrical collapse and remaining intact structure, even if ultimately stressed to the point of failure, would have provided substantial resistance to the collapse such that it would have been more progressive rather than so instantaneous, and taken longer; certainly not near free-fall speed.
The NIST report states that "The probable collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by the buckling of a critical interior column in" the northeast of the building.
Jeremy R. Hammond is the owner, editor, and principle writer for Foreign Policy Journal, a website dedicated to providing news, critical analysis, and commentary on U.S. foreign policy, particularly with regard to the "war on terrorism" and events in the Middle East, from outside of the standard framework offered by government officials and the mainstream corporate media. He has also written for numerous other online publications.
Oh, and we 'conspiracy theorists', as you derisively label us, happen to have a big problem with lies and obfuscation. And that is precisely what NIST's 'miracle' is all about. NIST, acting as on organ of the Bush administration is simply trying to clean up a bit of 'untidiness'. Facilitated by the thoroughly compliant (complicit) MSM. Too bad all those 'conspiracy theorist'-professionals over at ae911truth.org beg to differ.
by
richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 905 comments)
on Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 8:26:30 PM
I wasn't ridiculing anybody in the article. In fact, I was explaining how it is reasonable for people to theorize that a conspiracy took place and how many of the arguments put forward in that hypothesis have been proven correct by NIST.
by
Jeremy R. Hammond (38 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 85 comments)
on Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 10:47:21 PM
I happened to listen to an interview today, either on No-Lies Radio, KPFA Berkley, with a NIST spokes-person by someone I believe from We Are Change and ti would of been funny if the subject matter wasn't so serious.
Every time the NIST jack-ass would finish with some rambling response that wouldn't come near answering the question asked the interviewer would give a long drawn-out, "Ooookay,' as though he were talking to a madman he didn't want to upset.
I don't know if you caught the bit about Barbara Honegger that came out this week also. This was a bad week for the bad-guys. But Honegger's Scarlet A, as she's calling it is also huge with the evidence she says she has against some of the principles in executing the cover-up of 9/11 and the Anthrax case.
Anyway, here's hoping we're reaching that tipping point.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 20 diaries, 1784 comments)
on Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 11:03:46 PM
My best guess is that YOU feel insulted that you aren't SO respected.
Richard has earned a degree of respect (from me) by other things of his I have read that he has written. I don't say that that was ever his intention, it probably wasn't.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1042 comments)
on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 7:59:40 AM
Because it's the appropriate response to your inanity.
The compelling evidence that 911 was an inside job is all around you, and has been discussed here at OEN ad nauseum. For an OEN "regular" such as yourself to make the comment:
"If you have REASONS for thinking an inside job more likely than an outside one, I'd like to hear them."
Well, you don't really expect to be taken seriously, do you?
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 532 comments)
on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 8:55:23 AM
nearly 7 years after 9/11, many people have not yet been exposed to serious research into alternative theories about 9/11. While probably just about everyone has heard about alternative theories, given the mainstream media's treatment, likely many associate people who believe controlled demolition destroyed the WTC with pentagon missile, holograms and directed energy weapons theories and the kooks that Fox News chooses to interview instead of serious researchers, as that has been the consistent association, which is doubtless the intent, as the MSM talking heads rarely address the many other problems with the official story, even while reporting many of the facts that contradict the official conspiracy theory.
In addition to consistently pretending it's reasonable to believe that plane damage, fires and 15-30 stories of building mass can pulverize 95-80 stories of steel-frame and concrete (and gypsum, for albury) into dust clouds and small piles of rubble, they ignore the years of warning signs the FBI/CIA had received, the warnings received from other nations, that the FBI, CIA and NSA were monitoring the alleged hijackers (at least 6 reported alive after 9/11, FBI says no cases of mistaken ID), the no-brainer VISA violations, the repeated failures of standard FAA/NORAD procedures, the strange behavior of Bush administration principals and the secret service on 9/11, obstructed FBI investigations before and after the attacks, the insider trading and money trail, and many other details that should have been thoroughly investigated but were whitewashed by the commission made of insiders with conflicts of interest, who were controlled by Bush insider Philip Zelikow.
Insults prove nothing, and may turn people off to investigating 9/11 for themselves. This article seems to be, as the author says, a summary of the new NIST report and confirmation of some things that have been pointed out by those who theorize there was a conspiracy to intentionally demolish WTC 7. It's column 79, not 76, btw.
The article doesn't point out the absurdity of NIST's theory; that failure of a single column led to the collapse, within seconds, of the entire redundantly reinforced structure, symmetrically, at near free-fall speed. Controlled demolition can easily accomplish this, and WTC 7 shared many features of known controlled demolitions; kink at the top of the building, rapid onset of collapse, free fall speed, symmetrical and straight-down collapse, massive dust clouds, squibs, witnesses to sounds of explosions. In addition, molten metal was seen by credible witnesses in the wreckage of WTC 1 & 2; i'm not sure about 7, but the hot spots seen on satellite photos are in the area of 1, 2 & 7, so it seems likely there was molten metal the wreckage of 7 as well. In addition, there was foreknowledge of the unprecedented event; BBC and CNN both reported it before it happened, and there's at least a few different videos of people being told to clear out cuz the building would be coming down, in addition to the testimony of PTech whistleblower Indira Singh. Watch 7 coming down, see/hear eyewitnesses to foreknowledge/explosions
Thanks for pointing out that error. 79, not 76, right. Good post otherwise, as well.
I particularly agree with you about the insults. Facts should be enough to persuade people. Trying to intimidate them into changing their views is counterproductive.
I never personally have been satisfied with the official explanation on the collapse of the towers, particularly building 7. It seems physically impossible for a building to fall that way. But then, I'm not an engineer. Someone I am very close to, however, is an engineer who actually inspects buildings and other structures and has examined collapses and such. He finds the official explanation perfectly credible, at least more so than that explosives were planted in the building.
I try not to take anything on faith. I'm interested in the facts. I wrote this article objectively, not taking one side or the other, despite the fact that I'm certainly among the "conspiracy theorists" I write about (again, despite one commenter's assertion to the contrary, there's nothing "derisive" about the article and I don't use the term "conspiracy theory" the way I suppose it usually is. I mean just that--a theory that there was a conspiracy on 9/11--and don't intend to imply in any way that such theories are kooky or nutty or whatever).
I also give other experts the benefit of the doubt. Is everyone at NIST involved in a conspiracy to cover up what happened? I mean, to say that there are elements within our government who knew about and banked on (or, going a step further, actually orchestrated) the events of 9/11 is one thing, but to implicate everyone in the government or whole government agencies is just implausible to me. I'm sure there are decent people in the CIA, in the FBI, in NIST, etc, and I don't like implicating people as being complicit in crimes unless there is really solid evidence to do so.
If professional engineers say WTC 7 collapsed due to fires, I am simply not in a position to argue otherwise. I have common sense and consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent person. That's why I've always been more inclined to believe a controlled demolition took place. But WTF do I know?
The FEMA report was a joke, and I've always pointed that out. NIST actually confirms that, as I write about in this article. But at the same time they provide the first real explanation as to how the collapse might have occurred, and I think people should take it seriously before dismissing it and implicitly accusing everyone involved in it of being complicit in a cover-up.
I just spoke with Danny Jowenko, the controlled demolitions expert from the Netherlands who was interviewed on Dutch TV and after being shown the collapse said it was a controlled demolition. I asked if he could comment on NIST's conclusions. He said he hasn't read the report, was very busy and probably wouldn't be able to for several months, and that he had no comment.
I'm going to continue to seek expert opinion on this rather than speculating for myself or taking anything--one way or the other--on faith.
by
Jeremy R. Hammond (38 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 85 comments)
on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 11:14:53 AM
"nearly 7 years after 9/11, many people have not yet been exposed to serious research into alternative theories about 9/11."
Well we're not talking about "many people" in general here; rather, we're talking about a specific person who's been here for at least about two years and has made about 900 comments. If he hasn't been "exposed" to "alternative theories about 9/11" by now there's something wrong, don't you think?
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 532 comments)
on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 11:17:37 AM
Well, if telling someone they aren't a sentient being or that they are "living in a closet" because they don't happen to agree with you isn't something you consider insulting of other peoples' intelligence, then I don't know what else to say.
We just have different opinions on what constitutes an "insult" I suppose.
by
Jeremy R. Hammond (38 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 85 comments)
on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 2:29:03 AM
First of all, "Jeremy" (to the extent it's your business in the first place), "Brett" obviously started the ad hominem in this discussion by implying that Richard was a "crank".
Well, if telling someone they aren't a sentient being or that they are "living in a closet" because they don't happen to agree with you isn't something you consider insulting of other peoples' intelligence, then I don't know what else to say.
LOL! It's not simply a matter of "agreeing with me or not". That 9/11 was an "inside job" is now so utterly obvious, it's simply no longer open to debate between reasonable people. Thus it's clear that anyone who refuses to acknowledge that fact is either a shill and/or a fool.
Do people who apparently refuse to acknowledge self-evident facts, or fail to draw the only reasonable conclusions from those facts, deserve to be taken seriously? Of course not.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 532 comments)
on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 8:27:51 AM
Correction: "On Harold's Opinion of What He Says is 'Truth'"
Harold Smith,
You imply I've somehow butted into something that's not my business.
I guess I need to remind you that YOU ASKED ME what insults I could possibly be referring to when I agreed with Better World Order that insulting people is counterproductive, and YOU YOURSELF SUGGESTED YOUR OWN INSULT.
Seeing that the example YOU PRESENTED was as good as any, I simply noted that if you don't see what you said as insulting, then you and I just "have different opinions on what constitutes an 'insult' I suppose."
You then procede to simply cast more insults.
Harold, you can huff and puff all you want, but insulting people doesn't make you look any more intelligent. Quite the opposite.
Present your argument with facts and logic if you want to convince anyone. And if you can't do that, don't waste my time with more of this kind of nonsense.
by
Jeremy R. Hammond (38 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 85 comments)
on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 9:29:26 AM
You imply I've somehow butted into something that's not my business.
I guess I need to remind you that YOU ASKED ME what insults I could possibly be referring to when I agreed with Better World Order that insulting people is counterproductive, and YOU YOURSELF SUGGESTED YOUR OWN INSULT.
What the hell are you talking about? Please reread the thread. You're the one who first offered your unsolicited opinion that I had "insulted" Brett. It was IN RESPONSE TO YOUR UNSOLICITED OPINION that I asked you what "insults" you were referring to.
Seeing that the example YOU PRESENTED was as good as any, I simply noted that if you don't see what you said as insulting, then you and I just "have different opinions on what constitutes an 'insult' I suppose."
You then procede to simply cast more insults.
ROTFL! So, you first say that we have "different opinions on what constitutes an insult", then you again accuse me of "casting more insults". Well if it's a matter of opinnion, and I don't see it as an "insult" and you do, who the hell are you to decide?
You go to see your Doctor for pulmonary problems. He tells you that if you don't stop smoking three packs of cigarettes daily, you're a fool. Did he just "insult" you?
(BTW, please point out specifically where I've "cast more insults", in your humble opinion).
Harold, you can huff and puff all you want, but insulting people doesn't make you look any more intelligent. Quite the opposite.
Well frankly, coming from you, "Jeremy", I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks.
Present your argument with facts and logic if you want to convince anyone.
What "argument" would that be? That Brett apparently lives in a closet?
And if you can't do that, don't waste my time with more of this kind of nonsense.
Apparently one of your fundamental problems is that you take yourself far too seriously.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 532 comments)
on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 10:03:37 AM
Because it's the appropriate response to your inanity.
The compelling evidence that 911 was an inside job is all around you, and has been discussed here at OEN ad nauseum. For an OEN "regular" such as yourself to make the comment:
"If you have REASONS for thinking an inside job more likely than an outside one, I'd like to hear them."
Well, you don't really expect to be taken seriously, do you?
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 532 comments)
on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 8:56:07 AM
By "you" I meant Richard specifically not just any one
and yes I expect my offer to read what Richard writes on 9-11 will be taken seriously by Richard. I don't know whether he will bother to put his thoughts on paper but I think he'll take the fact of my offer to read them if he does seriously.
I also think its possible Richard might change his mind about 9-11 being an inside job if he currently is inclined to think it was by the process of ordering his thoughts and presenting them.
If I thought 9-11 was an inside job - and I was a practicing pyschiatrist I'd have very good reasons for asserting that it was, because I'd understand how difficult it would be to make the case against prevailing prejudices. I'd understand the sort of evidence that would need to be presented. I'd also know how important it would be that the truth come out if it was true that 9-11 was an inside job.
And that this report that the author of this article links to contains the words "draft for comment" and makes this issue timely at this time would not escape me.
Yes, I expect Richard to take my offer seriously, and to ask himself if he wanted to sort his thoughts and to put them down, because he could see that the potential audience would be wider than me. But will he write anything? I don't know. People always have conflicting demands on their finite resources (including their time) and that makes their personal priorities and specific actions unpredictable. Also, people frequently don't say anything when, upon private reflection, they change their minds.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1042 comments)
on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 12:38:14 PM
Because it's the appropriate response to your inanity.
The compelling evidence that 911 was an inside job is all around you, and has been discussed here at OEN ad nauseum. For an OEN "regular" such as yourself to make the comment:
"If you have REASONS for thinking an inside job more likely than an outside one, I'd like to hear them."
Well, you don't really expect to be taken seriously, do you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If that's the best you can do to furnish proof of your claim that 9/11 was an inside job, why should anyone take you seriously? You may have discussed the issue ad nauseum, but you've yet to produce a single fact to support your foolishness.
by
albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 396 comments)
on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 2:40:11 PM
So sad to read this "exchange" instead of a discussion
I expect more from the readers here. Guess I gotta dumb down my expectations.
Buildings collapsing virtually into their own footprints are the consummate diagnostic indicator of controlled demolition.
To adduce a point of logic, the alternative conspiracy theorist (as opposed to adherents of the official conspiracy theory) does not have the burden of presenting scenarios that would explain what happened -- we don't have to tell a story that hangs together, but rather our job is to point out how the official story does NOT hold together. This is one of the ways: The only three structural steel skyscrapers EVER to have collapsed due to fire (whether or not induced by collision with an aircraft) are WTC 1, 2, and 7.
Now go back to your little games, haggling over what is and is not an insult. (By the way, if you feel insulted, then I'll cop to having just insulted you. How's that?)
by
editnetwork (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 66 comments)
on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 7:26:46 PM
To adduce a point of logic, the alternative conspiracy theorist (as opposed to adherents of the official conspiracy theory) does not have the burden of presenting scenarios that would explain what happened -- we don't have to tell a story that hangs together, but rather our job is to point out how the official story does NOT hold together.
You've failed in that regard, and since you insist, without any supporting evidence, that the NIST findings should have pointed to a controlled demolition, you do have the burden of explaining why the steel in the WTC debris was only mechanically severed, mostly at connections, and none of it showed signs of being cut, melted, or burned by explosives or incendiaries. Go for it, Skippy.
by
albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 396 comments)
on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 6:19:44 AM
