Untitled Document
Damage suffered by Building 7
April 18, 2010
The photo below shows the situation of Building 7, in relation to the twin towers, still on fire.
In the foreground, Building 7. In the background, the twin towers on fire
The twin towers have just collapsed. On the left, Building 7
On the edge visible on the right, after the collapse of the towers, minor damage due to debris projections
On the facade facing the twin towers, very limited fires
Which cause the emission of smoke
The emission of smoke becomes more important, but the fire remains very limited
The rise of smoke emitted by the small fires on the lower floors
These are the photographs accompanying the NIST report. These very limited fires do not explain the sudden, perfectly symmetrical collapse of Building 7.
It is important to mention the official NIST explanation. It was provided by the lead investigator, Shyam Sunder, on August 3, 2008, after three years of investigation.
Shyam Sunder presenting the NIST conclusions regarding the collapse of Building 7, on August 3, 2008
The buckling of column 79, due to the fire, would have been the triggering element, followed by the rupture of a beam connecting columns 79 and 44 (indicated in red). This rupture would then have spread throughout the building.....
What does the NIST report published in August 2008 actually say?
-
The collapse of the Twin Towers caused severe damage to the south facade of WTC7, reducing the structural balance of the building. However, the NIST admits later that these damages could not have caused the collapse.
-
Fires fueled by furniture, carpets, and office supplies developed and devastated several floors by heating the floors and the column steel.
-
According to the NIST, the thermal expansion caused by the temperature increase forced the bolts of the floor connections at the ends, until their cracking and rupture. A beam on the 14th floor lost its connections to column 79, which caused the collapse of the 14th floor, triggering a cascade of floor collapses down to the 6th floor. Since column 79 was no longer supported by these floors, it buckled, triggering a collapse of the upper floors up to the roof of the building. Then all the internal core columns failed, and finally the exterior facade collapsed.
Some comments on this NIST report :
- Regarding this "thermal expansion" :
This is a completely new phenomenon, since the NIST tells us that this thermal expansion occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below what is generally accepted :
«* According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." *»
« According to the report, a key factor in the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was the thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures "hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." »
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
As Niels Harrit rightly points out in his interview with Télé Libre "September 11: The Right to Doubt?" (October 27, 2009):
10’23 : Niels Harrit: "And the NIST didn't really try to understand what happened. But they spent a lot of money and time to explain that it could be due to office fires. It's an audacious proposition because it has never happened in the history of modern architecture that a building like this collapses due to fire. They thus break a basic rule of the scientific method in that when you advance a scientific hypothesis, you must refer to experimentation, to experiments, to facts, to previously produced documents. You can't just come up with a new phenomenon without having demonstrated its reality."
11’25: "You can't have a scientist, gathered with his peers in a meeting, able to defend this theory…"
-
journalist: "But you know that there are scientists at the NIST. Do you think they are incompetent or corrupt?"
-
No, they are very, very competent. But they want to keep their jobs and are told what to write. This document is a scientific fraud, a scandal in the eyes of science"
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xaxqv5_11septembre-le-droit-au-doute_news
- Hypothesis of controlled demolition rejected :
La Libre Belgique - August 23, 2008 :
Title: "The collapse of WTC 7 is of 'extraordinary' nature"
"The official study did not consider the hypothesis that the building collapsed due to an explosion of thermate, a military variant of thermite used by demolition experts, whose traces had been found in the debris. The investigators did not test this hypothesis because they estimated that 50 kg of thermate would have had to be placed against the column to bend it, which was unlikely."
Therefore, the NIST rejects this hypothesis (which is not their responsibility but that of the FBI, but let's pass) because, according to them, placing 50 kg of thermate was simply not feasible... probably they estimated that terrorists would not have been able to place these 50 kg within the building that housed the CIA's secret base in the USA :
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1104-04.htm
- Heat of the fires :
As for the temperatures advanced by the NIST, they are contested by members of the association of architects and engineers for 9/11 :
[http://www.reopen911.info/News/2008/10/06/la-reponse-des-architectes-et-ingenieurs-au-rapport-du-n...