Why the NIST WTC 7 Report is False

Slide 1:

Why the NIST WTC 7 report is false: No collapse initiation Kevin R. Ryan Co-editor of The Journal of 9/11 Studies

The destruction of WTC 7 was unprecedented:

The destruction of WTC 7 was unprecedented “ The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers .” FEMA BPAT report on WTC 7 “ This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires .” NIST NCSTAR 1A, Executive Summary Official reports on WTC 7: FEMA BPAT report published May 2002 NIST WTC 7 report published November 2008

Early fire-based hypotheses could not be supported :

Early fire-based hypotheses could not be supported Diesel fuel fires were not the cause “Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7.“ NIST final report Damage due to falling debris from WTC 1 was not the cause " Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.” NIST final report Design over Con-Ed substation was not the cause “ Neither did the Con-Edison substation play a significant role in the collapse of WTC7.” NIST final report

Destruction of steel evidence:

Destruction of steel evidence The US House Committee on Science reported, in March 2002: " In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA] BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris... was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel…were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site .“ NFPA 921 : Fire and explosion investigations - “It is essential to prevent the destruction or removal of evidence …” WTC 7 steel found by Professor Astaneh-Asl

The NIST investigation of WTC 7:

The NIST investigation of WTC 7 Public comments: June 2002 Progress report: Dec 2002 Progress reports: May and Dec 2003 Interim report / decoupling: June 2004 Began again: Sept 2005 Draft report: Aug 2008 Answers to FAQs: Aug 2008 Final report: Nov 2008 FAQs updated: Dec 2008 FAQs updated again: Sept 2010

NIST was stumped for years…:

NIST was stumped for years… " But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7 .” Shyam Sunder to New York Magazine in 2006 " The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery “ Shyam Sunder in 2008, when WTC 7 report was unveiled " The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said,” "The obvious stares you in the face .“ Shyam Sunder to Associated Press in 2008 …then said it was obvious

NIST’s final reports:

NIST’s final reports NIST NCSTAR 1A , Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 NIST NCSTAR 1-9 , Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of WTC 7 Volume 1 Volume 2 Found online at wtc.nist.gov No testing was done -- these reports were built entirely on computer models

Slide 8:

NIST NCSTAR 1A, p 21-22 NIST’s final theory for WTC 7

NIST’s contradictions on shear studs:

NIST’s contradictions on shear studs NIST’s Interim Report 2004 -- NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (2008 ) --

Slide 12:

NIST’s interim report on WTC 7 (2004) referred to a paper by Salvarinas , who knew about the shear studs …the critical girder had 30 shear studs

Slide 13:

How did beam expansion break 28 shear studs on each beam, 30 shear studs on the critical girder, and 4 boltsatthe column seat? Differential linear expansion is where the expansion of the beam is greater than the expansion of the floor

Slide 14:

What do other experts say?

Column 79 and the critical girder:

Column 79 and the critical girder

NIST’s hypothesis is that the critical girder was pushed at least 5.5 inches:

NIST’s hypothesis is that the critical girder was pushed at least 5.5 inches Force from expanding floor beam 5. inches Center of mass Girder web After beam push

Slide 17:

NCSTAR 1-9, p 536 The NIST model simulated all of this as occurring in a matter of seconds At what temperature did this happen?

How did differential thermal expansion occur?:

How did differential thermal expansion occur? NCSTAR 1-9, pp 349 to 352

How much thermal expansion could the beams have experienced?:

How much thermal expansion could the beams have experienced? NIST’s example calculation: (NCSTAR 1-9, p 344 ) But the beams were 53 -foot long floor and NIST said the temperature maximum was 400  C (to retain rigidity)… Therefore the beams would experience a maximum linear expansion of… (0.000014 /  C ) x (400  C – 25  C ) x (636 in) = 3.3 inches ...not the 5.5 inches NIST said was needed for the girder to “walk-off ” its seat

Critical girder would still be on its seat:

Critical girder would still be on its seat Maximum possible deflection is 3.3 inches, which is 2.2 inches short of the minimum need for the center of mass to come off the seat Web still well seated

Seven hour fires?:

Seven hour fires? NIST reported that --“ WTC 7 endured fires for almost seven hours… ” and “ Fires were ignited on at least 10 floors; however, only the fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 grew and lasted until the time of the building collapse .” NIST simulations begin at 12:00 pm and last until 6:00 pm Fires first photographed at: 12:10 pm on floor 22 12:28 pm on floors 29, 30 02:00 pm on floor 7 02:08 pm on floors 11, 12 02:30 pm on floor 13 03:41 on pm floor 8 04:00 on pm floor 9 05:03 on pm floor 14

Underwriters Laboratories:

Underwriters Laboratories UL was the firm that provided the fire resistance information for WTC 7. " According to the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Fire Resistance Directory (1983), these ratings required a thickness of 7/8 in. of Monokote MK-5 to be applied to the heavy columns, 1 7/8 in. to be applied to the lighter columns, 1/2in. to be applied to the beams, and 3/8 in. to be applied to the bottom of the metal deck ." NCSTAR 1A, p 7 " Private inspectors found that the applied SFRM thicknesses were consistent with these values ." NCSTAR 1A, p 7 (also see NCSTAR 1-9, table 8-1, p 340) “ The debris damaged the spray-applied fire resistive material…only in the vicinity of the structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1.” NCSTAR 1A p xxxvii

How hot did the fireproofed steel get and how long did it take?:

How hot did the fireproofed steel get and how long did it take? " However, it appeared likely the critical damage state occurred between 3.5 h and 4 h." NCSTAR 1A, p 32 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, p 330 NIST NCSTAR 1A, p 21

Only 20 minutes of fire load in a given area :

Only 20 minutes of fire load in a given area NIST admitted in their December 2007 advisory committee meeting that the fire load could only support 20 minutes of fire in any given location. "Question (Thornton): “…fire moved every 20 minutes; essentially it started and stopped every 20 minutes, so if you do not have fuel in WTC 7, how could fires burn for as long as they had and taken out this major structure that had good fireproofing ?“ "Answer (Sunder): “The fires moved from location to location, meaning that at any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed. While the combustibles at a location were being consumed, the fire front would be progressing to adjacent combustibles."

NIST’s computer simulations:

NIST’s computer simulations

Slide 26:

Excerpts from NIST’s 2004 interim report

NIST did not use the photos as model input:

NIST did not use the photos as model input NCSTAR 1-9, p 378

How long did fires last?:

How long did fires last? “The global analysis with fire-induced damage at 4 h most closely matched the observed collapse events.” NCSTAR 1A, p 39 The evidence shows that fires first appeared on the south side of floors 11 through 13 after 2 pm and the fire on the NE corner of floor 12 was out at 3:49 (and all floor 12 fires were out at 4:45) The evidence shows less than 2 hours of fire on the entire floor! There is no evidence for a 4 hour fire on floor 12 NFPA 921 : Fire and explosion investigations -- “Subjective or speculative information cannot be included in the analysis , only facts that can be proven clearly by observation or experiment."

Slide 29:

The fires in the NE corner of floor 12 had burned out nearly two hours before the building fell.

Why NIST’s final collapse initiation theory is unscientific and false:

Why NIST’s final collapse initiation theory is unscientific and false NIST ignored previous findings on the WTC 7 steel samples No physical tests were done to confirm the mechanisms NIST proposed The fire theory is contradicted by the known fire resistance plan The fires in WTC 7 lasted only 20 minutes in each area while the steel components were rated for hours of fire resistance NIST’s final theory was based entirely on computer simulations that are not based on evidence NIST’s fire modeling contradicts the photographic evidence The fires in the critical areas (NE corner of floor 12) were out long before collapse NIST contradicted itself and known facts about shear studs on the girder The maximum thermal expansion possible could not have caused the girder to “walk-off” its seat

Slide 31:

Structural engineer Ron Brookman , SE, made a FOIA request to NIST in 2009 asking for calculations and analysis behind the claim of girder walk-off failures. Can we see the NIST computer models?

For more information and to help, see: RememberBuilding7.org ScientistsFor911Truth.org AE911Truth.org :

For more information and to help, see: RememberBuilding7.org ScientistsFor911Truth.org AE911Truth.org