NIST's Cover-up Wrap-up
|Shyam Sunder at presentation|
On August 22, 2008, just 20 days before the seventh anniversary of the attack, NIST issued the draft of their Final Report, and held a webcast. 1
- ‘Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7′ — Draft for Public Comment [PDF]
- [The original NIST webcast presentation]
Arabesque911 provides a round-up of some of the responses to NIST's latest installment:
- NIST Concludes "Fire" Caused WTC 7 “Collapse” when FEMA Report Concluded Fuel Tank Explosion had "low probability” of Knocking Down Tower
The Final Report just fills in more imagined details into the scenario described in their earlier reports, and, perhaps, contains a more explicit admission that the collapse theory is a domino theory divorced from any known examples, where the failure of a single member triggers a cascading series of failures that completely levels the skyscraper.
Shyam Sundar, the leader of NIST's assignment to explain the collapses, has to be aware that Steven Jones and others have uncovered evidence of aluminothermic arson, NIST's 2006 FAQ having addressed the orange spout of molten metal pouring from the South Tower. In the press conference he was rather heavy-handed in keeping the subject of controlled demolition off the table. Professor Jones provided this account:
NIST'S WTC 7 technical briefing took place this morning. A number of good questions were asked, it seemed they came mostly from the 9/11-truth-seeking community. I asked (and these got through but were somewhat re-worded by the fellow "reading" the questions):
1. Did NIST have available to it samples of dust from the WTC catastrophe, and if so, did NIST examine the dust for red/gray chips as described by Dr. Steven Jones (physicist)? Note that over a dozen WTC-dust samples were examined by the US Geological Survey, and these were presumably available to NIST.
2. NIST discusses the fall time for WTC 7 on page 40 of their summary, where we find the significant assumption: "Assuming that the descent speed was approximately constant..." However, observations by Dr. Frank Legge and others of the descent speed shows that it is accelerating, not constant at all. Why did NIST assume "that the descent speed was approximately constant" when observation shows otherwise?
On 1, Shyam Sundar did not answer my questions at all -- he simply replied that they found some hypotheses "not credible," without doing the relevant experiments. Not a very scientific answer, IMO. PS -- they didn't look...
Jones notes that NIST ignored recent papers in peer-reviewed journals providing evidence of controlled demolition:
- The Open Civil Engineering Journal:
On question 2, Sundar and John Gross hemmed and hawed a bit, admitted that acceleration was probable and finally said the report probably needed to be corrected. If they make the needed correction, it should of course change their calculated fall time which was evidently based on the assumption that the descent SPEED was approximately constant... We will be watching.
My third question, about the high-temperature corrosion
and sulfidation of a WTC 7 steel member-- reported in Appendix C
of the FEMA report -- was not read...
AFAIK -- I say this because, after my second question was read and answered, the feed of the Briefing to my computer failed, and I could not get re-connected...