World911Truth.org | September 13, 2011
WTC Building 7 Collapse: NIST Reality Check
More than six years after starting its investigation, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency under the U.S. Department of Commerce) issued its final report on Building 7, in November 2008. The most important part of NIST’s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse.
Let’s compare NIST official model of Building 7′s collapse to… reality.
NIST Reality Check: Let’s Compare
Has NIST’s Analysis of Building 7 Passed Reality Check?
Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper, the third building to collapse in New York City on 9/11 at 5:20 PM. The official reason for the collapse of this building is “normal office fires fueled by office furnishings.” (Ref: NIST Press Briefing). NIST has ruled out oil-fueled fires and explosives from the list of possible reasons for collapse.
If this building — or any other 47-story skyscraper — had fell at free fall acceleration on any other date, a real criminal investigation would have followed, and giving the fact that this building collapsed in under 7 seconds, criminal investigators would have, and should have, tested for the possible use of explosives. The most probable cause for a free fall collapse of any building.
We all would have wanted to know why the building collapsed the way it did. The sensation-hungry media would have played it over and over, and the final conclusions from the investigation would have led to safety recommendations, to help prevent any such collapse to happen in the future.
But for the past 10 years, most people, including journalists and pundits, have kept their heads in the sand while calling people demanding a real investigation names like conspiracy theorists. Why are we still looking the other way? Why is it that 75% of New Yorkers never saw footage of Building 7 after 10 years?
NIST Modeling Discrepancies and Secret Data
The clearest discrepancy of NIST’s model is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse.
“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder puts it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.
Although NIST’s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse, it cannot be falsified because NIST did not release its modeling data.”
— David Chandler, Physics Teacher, Member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
NIST has never released its modeling data. In a letter response to a FOIA request asking for the release of this data (July, 2009), NIST director Patrick Gallagher clearly answered: releasing this data might jeopardize public safety. How could this data jeopardize public safety?
More recently, in April 2011, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said the complainant has no right to raw data that NIST used to model the collapse of one of the World Trade Centers (read an article about this verdict).
NIST Failed to Fulfill Their Mission
NIST’s mission, as stated on their website, is “to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.” If a skyscraper, like Building 7, collapsed due to some normal office fires alone, shouldn’t they release this data, at least to help us build safer buildings and perhaps help fix the fragile ones which could collapse at free fall, with people in it? Wouldn’t that be in the interest of public safety?
We believe NIST has deliberately distorted facts and basic science. They have failed their mission to ensure public safety, and their work should be scrutinized by a criminal investigation with subpoena power.
It is time for a new, independent, and real criminal investigation into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, that would take into account the probable use of explosives.
Make sure to support the Remember Building 7 TV Ad Campaign led by 9/11 family members, first responders, and survivors currently calling for a new investigation into Building 7′s collapse.
Building 7: The Experts Speak Out
Backed by 9/11 family members still calling for a real investigation, this group of more than 1,500 architects, engineers and scientists are telling us — in this newly released 15-minute video narrated by actor Ed Asner — what they think about the collapse of Building 7.
Other Important Facts About Building 7
- Building 7’s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
- Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies including the CIA, the DOD and the Secret Service. It was also home of the NYC Office of Emergency Management’s Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as “Giuliani’s Bunker”.
- If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.
What is your verdict? Let us know in the comments section below.
Nov 19-20, Occupy Building 7
Michael Moore Supports a New 9/11 Investigation
New Book By David Ray Griffin
Lupe Fiasco Talks 9/11 Conspiracy at New York Protest
Roseanne Barr on 9/11: “We Know”
NEW 9/11 Explosive Documentary Film: The Experts Speak Out
France: 58% Doubt the Official 9/11 Version, Only 14% Know About Building 7
