Friday, July 06, 2007

1-Sentence Debunking of NIST'S Report on WTC 7

I can debunk NIST's new report - which claims that fires alone brought down WTC 7 - in one sentence. I'll do so by linking to a New York Times article :
Partly EVAPORATED Steel Beams Were Found At WTC 7; But Normal Office and Diesel Fires are Not NEARLY Hot Enough to Evaporate Steel
Hydrocarbon fires fueled by diesel (which was apparently stored at WTC 7) and normal office materials cannot evaporate steel. Steel does not evaporate unless it is heated to at least 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Everyone agrees that fires from conventional building fires are thousands of degrees cooler than that.

NIST's theory is a non-starter.

Need more proof? Check out what these experts say:
  • Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"
  • Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
"Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds... ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."
  • Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
"WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"


Blogger terrence said...

Another 1-sentence debunking:

Asymmetrical damage cannot create symmetrical collapse.


Chaotic fires cannot create orderly structural failure.

Not sure of the best way to word it, but that's my take.

2:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Be sure to check out This is the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth's official website and it is full of great indisputable evidence that the NIST report cannot possibly be accurate. If you are, or know anyone who is or might know of an architect or engineer, especially licensed ones, please send them to this website and get them to sign the petition. They are working toward a goal of 1000 signatures of architects and engineers by Sept 11 of this year. Please help them in any way possible. They have a great deal of credibility that is hard to argue with. I met Richard Gage, the architect behind ae911truth and he is a great man working for a very worthy cause. Thank you.

2:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home