Tuesday, 20 April 2010

RECAP: The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False

Scientists, presupposing the regularity of nature, operate on the principle that like effects generally imply like causes. Scientists are, therefore, loathe to posit unprecedented causes for common phenomena. By 9/11, the collapse of steel-framed high-rises had become a rather common phenomenon, which most Americans had seen on television. And in every one of these cases, the building had been brought down by explosives in the process known as controlled demolition. From a scientific perspective, therefore, the obvious assumption would have been that WTC 7 came down because explosives had been used to remove its steel supports.

However, the public discussion of the destruction of the World Trade Center did not occur in a scientific context, but in a highly charged political context. America had just been attacked, it was almost universally believed, by foreign terrorists who had flown hijacked planes into the Twin Towers, and in response the Bush administration had launched a “war on terror.” The idea that even one of the buildings had been brought down by explosives would have implied that the attacks had not been a surprise, so this idea could not be entertained by many minds in private, let alone in public.
-------------------------------------------------
No Girder Shear Studs: NIST’s explanation as to how fire caused Building 7 to collapse starts with thermal expansion, meaning that the fire heated up the steel, thereby causing it to expand.

A steel beam on the 13th floor, NIST claims, caused a steel girder attached to Column 79 to break loose. Having lost its support, Column 79 failed, and this failure started a chain reaction, in which all 82 of the building’s steel columns failed. [51]

Without getting into the question of whether this is even remotely plausible, let us just focus on the question: Why did that girder fail?

It failed, NIST said, because it was not connected to the floor slab with sheer studs. NIST wrote:

In WTC 7, no studs were installed on the girders. Floor beams . . . had shear studs, but the girders that supported the floor beams did not have shear studs.

This point was crucial to NIST’s answer to a commonly asked question: Why did fire cause WTC 7 to collapse, when fire had never before brought down steel-framed high-rise buildings, some of which had had much bigger and longer-lasting fires? NIST’s answer was: differences in design.

One of those crucial differences, NIST stated repeatedly, was “the absence of [girder] shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint.”

But this was a fabrication on NIST’s part. How can we know this? All we need to do is to look at NIST’s Interim Report on WTC 7, which it had published back in 2004, before it had developed its theory of girder failure.

This report stated that girders as well as the beams had been attached to the floor by means of shear studs. [52]

We have here as clear a case of fabrication as one will see, with NIST simply making up a fact in order to meet the needs of its new theory.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20090914&articleId=15201

The entire NIST investigation appears to be a deliberate attempt to avoid looking at the specific evidence showing WTC7 was explosively demolished. Apart from this avoidance they also provided an obviously false story about how fire alone could have brought down the building. In doing so they blatantly lied about a number of things.

NIST appears to be acting as an accessory after the fact in an act of Treason. The prima facie evidence clearly shows 911 was an inside job and yet NIST looks to be deliberately obfuscating the data.

There is the crime of misprision of treason- the failure to report Treason to the relevant authorities. The penalties for such a crime is seven years jail, a fine or both. Because 911 is such a great crime I would expect any judge to recommend the maximum possible sentence.

(Remember, only the truth about 911 will end the war on terror.)

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, April 20th, 2010.]

No comments: