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

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

NIST started in 2002 and was stumped for years…:

NIST started in 2002 and 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 contradictions on shear studs:

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

Slide 7:

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 8:

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

Slide 9:

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 5.5 inches Center of mass Girder web After beam push

Slide 12:

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

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 did not use the photos as model input:

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

Slide 20:

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