NIST Report Debunked & Exposed

Joined: 10:36 AM - Dec 22, 2007

10:21 AM - Dec 30, 2008 #1


Joined: 8:33 AM - Feb 16, 2008

2:15 PM - Jan 09, 2009 #2

good work.

now something to visualize how strong is the building and how hard to destroy ... not mentioning the free-fall tempo ...,film,6 ... %C5%BCowca

Joined: 3:23 PM - Jan 15, 2008

5:15 PM - Jan 09, 2009 #3


Without a real public outcry, I fear that current concerns about the economy
will effectively sweep 9/11 under the carpet.


Joined: 4:13 AM - Jan 18, 2008

11:49 AM - Jan 29, 2009 #4

Well done video!

Perhaps not, There's a movement afoot to charge Bush and Cheney with torture. This would open the door to "investigations" and establish Bush and Cheney as criminals. The Truth Movement is growing inexorably and the time will come when enough people are ready for the truth. Then the really hard part begins when we open up Pandora's Box.

Here's something from France: ... 2976940152

Joined: 3:23 PM - Jan 15, 2008

6:24 PM - Oct 16, 2010 #5

This is a posting exchange from JREF regarding the inadequacy of the NIST fire
triforcharity at JREF wrote:"I eagerly await your posts, so I can take it apart bit by bit, piece by piece, and all the while, not even breaking a sweat."
Great, we can start right away.

As I previously stated, I have a problem with the NIST fire simulations failing to debunk Danny Jowenko's contention that in his professional opinion, there is absolutely no way fire caused the collapse of WTC7.

The NIST fire simulations indicate that floor 12 and floor 13 of WTC7 suffered from the greatest amount of heat energy.

Using NIST's Figure 9-13 from NCSTAR 1-9's fire simulation chapter, the NIST argues that on floor 12, a heat release rate of 200 MW was sustained for over 2 hours from about 3 p.m. onward.

The NIST figure 9-11, indicates that fully developed fires covered an area of 750 square meters between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m.

My problem here is, the NIST used a fuel loading factor of 32 kg per square meter for their floor 12 simulations.

The NIST's heat release rate of 200 MW sustained for over 2 hours implies a total energy release of 1,440 GJ.

To do this, we have to assume that the combustible material on floor 12 of WTC7 released 20 MJ/kg.

Over an area of 750 square meters, that would represent the combustion of 72,000 kg of office material.

In other words 96 kg per square meter.

Knock the NIST time estimate down to 40 minutes, instead of 2 hours, and then
their 32 kg per square meter fuel loading factor becomes in agreement with the 12th floor fuel load that the NIST has assumed.

You can only imagine how this grave error would wreak havoc with the NIST computer simulation results.

Once you've resolved this conflict (without breaking a sweat of course), I have some more issues to present regarding the validity of the NIST fire energy estimates.

[Another reply of silence.]


Joined: 3:23 PM - Jan 15, 2008

6:38 PM - Oct 16, 2010 #6

This is a posting exchange from JREF regarding the inadequacy of the NIST computer simulations.

It draws extensively on a paper prepared by Dr. Greening in response to the long overdue NIST WTC7 Final Draft Report for Public Comment issue in August 2008. several days after the death of Barry Jennings.
alienentity at JREF wrote:"...the ANSYS and LS-DYNA models were needed to confirm the probable mechanism.
How else would you calculate these events? With a magic wand?

These are not some simplistic back-of-the-envelope theories, but comprehensive models that are designed to be as realistic as possible. Perhaps you know of a better method of modeling. You should offer it to the world then, and perhaps charge for the use of the software and modeling that you've done.

By using the NIST models you are conceding that they are by far the most well-documented and comprehensive that exist."
bolding is mine

So your argument is basically that the validity of the NIST WTC7 Collapse Theory is dependent on the quality of their computer modeling.

I agree.

And because the quality of the NIST computer modeling is seriously flawed, I dispute the validity of the conclusions that are based on those simulations.

My first problem is with their critical 12th floor fire simulation, and this has already been raised in the Jowenko thread here; ... tcount=863

My next problem with the NIST LSDYNA Model of WTC-7 concerns Figure 12-45 which can be seen in Chapter 12, on pg. 576 of NCSTAR_1-9 Vol2.

The NIST model shows at the WTC7 roof level, column 79 having a vertical displacement of 0.83 meters in 0.6 seconds.

This infers that within 1 second of buckling, column 79 was dropping downwards with an acceleration of 4.6 meters per second (0.5 g).

Given that from floor 14 to the roof, column 79 was firmly held, on each unheated and undamaged floor by several framing beams and girders, this is an incredible amount of motion occurring moments before collapse initiation.

I ask you alienentity, how accurate and realistic is a computer model, that within 0.2 seconds, allows all the lateral supports acting on column 79 from more than 30 upper floors, to be ripped out or otherwise disconnected from their very secure connections?

From there, we have the issue of how NIST’s computer generated images of a crumpled and severely distorted WTC 7 bear no comparison with the video images of the real thing.

Yet, the NIST has the mendacity to yet again state one of their favorite conclusions; “the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well.”

Furthermore, based on Figure 12-69 of the same NIST document, the dimensions of depth, width and height, reveal a NIST model prediction that the after extensive column buckling over 3.8 seconds, the WTC 7 roofline dropped about 5 stories or 20 meters.

Observations of the collapse of WTC 7 show that the roofline actually dropped by about 15 stories, or 60 meters, 3.8 seconds after collapse initiation.

This reveals yet another error by a factor of 300%.
alienentity at JREF wrote:"Getting to the meat of this post will require me to spend some time, which I don't have today. It will have to wait.

I'm not dodging the debate, but when you preface the whole thing by 'poisoning the well' as you did, that itself requires a response. Try not to waste time in future by injecting such hyperbole into your thesis.

Next in line, when you refer to 'my problem', do you mean yours or Dr. Greenings? I can't tell which it is. The first time you talked about 'your' problem, you were actually plagiarizing Dr. Greening.

So this is your chance to come clean and give credit to those who provided the info that you are offering, unless it actually is your own original work.

Do it now or I will put you on ignore and will not respond further to you. the choice is yours."
Ignore me.

Your responses effectively do that anyway.

I have made no secret that I respect Dr. Greening's paper which functions as a very
effective rebuttal of the NIST WTC7 Collapse Report.

I have no idea what you mean by; "poisoning the well"?

An argument either has merit or it doesn't.

If you feel compelled to get bogged down in argument ownerships, than you are only revealing the inherent dishonesty of your position on 9/11.

"My problem" as you put it, is neither mine or Dr. Greening's.

It is the problem of anyone who really cares about the truth behind 9/11!

If you really think that a subject as big as 9/11 should be supplanted by your petty concerns about plagiarism alienentity, than I really feel nothing but disgust for you!

I have no problem at all in giving Dr. Greening credit for setting me in a direction that revealed how badly the NIST abused their respected government position, by choosing expedience in place of facts, when feeding their WTC7 computer model.

Frank Greening has done some great work in the service of 9/11 truth and I applaud him for it.

[Another reply of silence.]


Joined: 3:23 PM - Jan 15, 2008

8:28 PM - Oct 16, 2010 #7

The Silence Before the WTC7 Collapse

I'm watching the video of the collapse of the 30 story Landmark Tower. At the time, March, 2006,
it was the 2nd tallest building to be imploded by controlled demolition.

As we know, in order to implode a concrete and steel building it is necessary to remove it's core
column support. After that, gravity does the work.

In order to get a balanced symmetrical collapse, column removal has to be such that the implosion is centered inward.

A large number of columns must be rapidly failed in a computed sequence in order to achieve this.

In that video you can easily hear the 12 or more column removal explosions prior to any visible sign of
the tower's collapse.

As every OCTer likes to point out, it is a very audible process, especially projected from an unsealed (windows removed) building. Those heavy steel core columns do not go quietly unless they are cut by heat.

This brings me to the NIST Final Report on the WTC7 Collapse.

The NIST spent 7 years and used all their immense resources to come up with a theory for the collapse of the 47-story WTC7.

The NIST theory, which their representative Dr. S. Shyam Sunder so arrogantly stated was conclusive, argues that the failure of a single column, column #79, was the initiating factor behind WTC7's total collapse.

The NIST claims column #79 buckled between floor 5 and floor 14.

Immediately outside, from their nearby east side location , firefighters and video cameras observed and recorded the sounds from WTC7.

They heard and recorded mostly the sounds of breaking glass and flames at open windows.

Meanwhile, under a cover of relative silence, supposedly the NIST theory was taking form.

The massive column, #79, had its connecting beams and girders ripping free between floors 5 and 14.

The NIST theorized that a cascading floor collapse then occurred from floor 13 down to the "massive Floor 5 slab"

At this point, according to the NIST theory, column #79 then became unstable from lack of lateral support and buckled.

Following the buckling of the massive column #79, the NIST further theorized that unobserved, the remaining floor systems from floor 14 up to the east penthouse of this 47-story building failed.

According to the NIST theory, this lead to the kink in the east penthouse, the failure of columns 80 & 81,
the further failure of columns 76 to 78 and a continuous east to west internal failure of the remaining columns.

The global collapse observed at this stage speaks for itself.

Now one of my biggest problems is that the NIST insist that they were right to dismiss any possibility
of controlled demolitions being the cause of the observed global collapse because; "...the soundtracks from videos being recorded at the time of the collapse did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast."

And they ignore the possibility of any quieter form of controlled demolition such as could be achieved by nano-thermite.


If this NIST assumption is true, than it stands to reason that the soundtracks should have recorded what the NIST claim was actually occurring.

We have no sound recordings, around the time of the 5:20 p.m. global collapse, that even hint at the enormous amount of destruction that the NIST theory describes.

Cameras and firefighters were near the east side location where floors 13 to 6 supposedly suffered an initial cascading collapse.

Through all those broken east side windows, that major bit of destruction should have created a horrifically loud series of sounds.

The buckling failure of the nearby massive steel column #79 should also have been incredibly loud.

? ? ?

Apparently audio recordings are only necessary when unpopular theories are being disputed?
BigAl at JREF wrote:"There are no silent explosives. To the extent nano-something is explosive, it isn't silent.

Explosives would have been audible for miles and none of the million or so people in that radius heard the blast."
I never said there were silent explosives.

The NIST essentially argue that such loud sound sources, if not recorded around the time of the collapse, were proof that such sources must not have existed!

If the NIST wish to use that argument, than they need to explain the missing recordings for all the loud sound sources which according to their collapse theory had to have existed.

But, there are no recorded sounds that support the NIST fantasy of
how WTC7 collapsed.

Massive steel columns buckling, multiple floors collapsing, beam and girders ripping free of their connections and basically all the NIST have is the recording of some glass breaking?

And this was all supposedly occurring just prior to the observed global collapse.
leftysergeant at JREF wrote:"They also go relatively quietly [heavy steel core columns] if thjey are pulled apart by thermal creep. Do learn something about the performance of steel structures in a fire."
Massive steel columns, quietly buckling in a matter of seconds?

Please cite your source oh learned one?
Miragememories wrote:"And they ignore the possibility of any quieter form of controlled demolition such as could be achieved by nano-thermite."
leftysergeant wrote:"They did not ignore it. It has to exist in order to be ignored and there just was no such thing possible."
You might want to read this for a start; ... ?fullstory
leftysergeant wrote:"The failure of the key column may have been loud, but, as I said earlier, not as loud as cutter charges..."
Again, cite your proof.

I read repeated OCT yammering about no recorded sounds of explosives, but OCTers are quite happy to ignore the no sound
of massive steel columns buckling, multiple floors collapsing, beams and girders ripping free of their connections.

As you like to say, you can't have it both ways.


Joined: 3:23 PM - Jan 15, 2008

8:35 PM - Oct 16, 2010 #8

A better case has been raised for a controlled demolition of WTC7 that employed nano-thermite.

It provides the best fit explanation for the controlled demolition of WTC7, and explains the lack of recorded audio for the NIST's pre-collapse theory as well as the alternative explosive-based controlled demolition theory.

Like it or not, there is ample proof of the existence of huge amounts of nano-thermite material. ... ?fullstory
A few statements from Professor of Chemistry, Niels Harrit;
[bolding is mine and superfluous content has been snipped in the interest of brevity.]

Professor Niels Harrit: "...we find the remains of what we characterize as thermetic material, and this is a very energetic material which can be used either for melting iron, or it can be designed as an explosive."

Professor Niels Harrit: "We do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It’s very, very possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance."

Interviewer: "When you say “in abundance,” how much do you mean?"

Professor Niels Harrit:"Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!"

Interviewer: "So we are not just talking about nano-thermite. In fact, we are talking about both nano-thermite and conventional explosives used in large quantities…"

Professor Niels Harrit:"We have not found remains or traces of conventional explosives. Actually, we’ve suggested and recommended to NIST, which is the National Institute of Standards and Technology, that they should look for remains or traces of explosives, and they have refused to do that every time. They have not investigated it."

Interviewer: "...In terms of the nano-thermite...could it have been a naturally occurring substance in any way?"

Professor Niels Harrit:"One thing, which has been mentioned frequently in the discussion following our publication, is that this could be the primer paint which was applied to the steel beams in order to prevent corrosion.

...we are missing large amounts of chromium, zinc, and magnesium.

...the paint on the steel beams is stable beyond 800 degrees Centigrade. Now, the stuff we have found ignites at 430 degrees Centigrade. So, it is not the primer paint. So, what I can say is… Is this nano-thermite? Well, it quacks like a duck, it waggles like a duck, it looks like a duck, maybe it’s a duck? This is all we can say."

Interviewer: "What first piqued your interest in 9/11? How did you first come to examine the rubble? What did you expect to find?"

Professor Niels Harrit:"...when I accidentally saw the collapse of Building 7.
...Building 7 was a huge building close to two hundred meters high, 47 stories, with a footprint at the level of a small soccer field.

...And it is going down completely symmetrically in 6.5 seconds. Z-z-z-u-p! Like that! And as a scientist, you are trained to watch your environment in an analytical fashion. You always think: how does this happen and how does that happen?

And this I just couldn’t understand or cope with. Why should this building come down, which I had never heard of before? It comes down with no apparent reason. So I have to push the button again and again. And it took me weeks actually to digest this. And I think this is common to most people – to realize what you have seen. But once you have realized this, there is no way back. So you can either speak out, or you can live in shame. And from that on I got more and more interested. And I found that the evidence for a controlled demolition is overwhelming. The evidence for thermite is also. First, I told you that the thermite reaction produces molten iron. Now, molten iron was pouring out of one of the towers, and molten iron in pools under the rubble after 9/11 for weeks and months. The surface temperature was 735 degrees after three days of heavy showers. It took them three months to put out the fire. It was declared officially extinguished on December 20th. Now, this is the kind of fire! And the point is that the thermite kept on reacting. This was a witch’s brew of thermite chemistry. For three months! Very sophisticated, very complicated. It’s a masterpiece of demolition."


Joined: 3:23 PM - Jan 15, 2008

9:15 PM - Oct 20, 2010 #9

This was a short exchange at the JREF 9/11 Conspiracy subForum.

triforcharity, who claims to be an instructor in fire science, provided what he felt was a good example of a published response by a respected professional organization, that fully endorsed the findings of the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7.
triforcharity wrote:"The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), agrees with the NIST.

I think they might know a thing or two about all buildings eh?"
Miragememories wrote:"Oh really.

From just a quick look.

10. CTBUH Conclusions

"The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a result of the buckling of Column 79.

We believe that the failure was a result of the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and then buckling of internal columns. This is an important distinction, as NIST appears to be seeking improved performance from floors rather than columns. "
on pg.10"
The CTBUH, also make it clear that they do not agree with any conspiracy theories, but the fact remains that they
reached a final conclusion which is in total disagreement with the NIST collapse initiation theory.

In essence they want to agree with the NIST, but can't.

Not until the NIST can provide them with a plausible theory showing how the fires alone caused WTC 7 to collapse.