In response to the WTC tragedy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a 3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7.

On November 25, 2008. NIST released its final report on the collapse of WTC 7.

NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell

NIST has made a 3 minute video on the collapse of WTC 7. They have broken down
1,000’s of pages of research into 3 minutes for the American people.
NIST: FINAL REPORT on Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7
WTC 7: “NIST contention is that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.”

NIST admits that the North wall came down in 7 seconds. Which is approx. the same time as the remaining three walls.
NIST WTC 7 Report – Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 1
Did NIST Fraudulently Omit A Key Component Related to Collapse Theory From WTC Building 7 Report?
Why The NIST Report on WTC 7 is Unscientific and False


“Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?
No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.”
Was the diesel fuel being stored in the WTC 7 the culprit that made it collapse?
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett
said.” – New York Times (11/29/01)
GROUND ZERO; Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall Of 3rd Tower
Point WTC7-1: The Claim that WTC 7 Collapsed from Fire Alone
“NIST originally suggested1 that WTC 7 was brought down by structural damage combined with a raging fire fed by diesel fuel. However, in its Final Report (of November 2008)2, NIST declared that neither diesel fuel nor structural damage played a role in this building’s collapse, and that this building, which was not struck by a plane, was brought down by fire alone.”




“This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires” NIST 2008 (Page 37)

NIST Says WTC7 Collapse Caused By Thermal Expansion, Not Conspiracy

“The collapse of WTC 7 was primarily due to fires.”
9/11 NIST Shyam Sunder Explains The WTC 7 ‘New Phenomenon’ On CNN

“First time a building over 15 or 17 stories high collapsed primarily due to fire” – Shyam Sunder
“The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”

“As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced “large amounts of visible smoke” from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed.

Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.””


NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4 Global Collapse
“The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse”
NCSTAR1A p.39/130
“the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.”
NCSTAR1A-3.2]”It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows”
– 6:47am, WTC 7’s fire alarm is placed on 8 hr ‘test’ mode which any alarms received are ignored.
WTC7 Demolition – Why The Building Really Fell (NIST NCSTAR1A Explosion Dub)

“The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11/01 shows all of the features of an implosion engineered through controlled demolition. Controlled demolition is the use of pre-positioned explosive charges to destroy structures. Depending on the nature of the structure and constraints imposed by its surroundings, a controlled demolition may require a great deal of precision in its planning and execution. That is especially true of tall steel buildings in urban settings, given the natural tendency of such structures to topple. Controlled demolitions of buildings in cities are designed to implode the structures, making them sink into their footprints and fold in on themselves into a small consolidated rubble piles. Observing the collapse of 47-story WTC 7 shows it to have all of the features of an implosion engineered by controlled demolition.”
“the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures.” John Gross / Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing
“We knew from the beginning of our study that understanding what happened to Building 7 on 9/11 would be difficiult. IT DID NOT FIT ANY TEXTBOOK DESCRIPTION THAT YOU COULD READILY POINT TO AND SAY, YES THAT’S WHY THE BUILDING FAILED.” Dr, Shyam Sunder, degree in engineering at MIT
“WTC 2 collapsed at 9:58:59 a.m. from the damage inflicted by the aircraft and the intense, multi floor fires that followed. A few windows on the lower floors of the south face of WTC 7 were broken, and dust and small debirs were deposited in the 3rd floor lobby. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings, and there was no evidence of structural damage to WTC 7.

When WTC 1 collapsed at 10:28:22 a.m., most of the debris landed in an area not much larger than the original WTC 1 building footprint. However, some fragments were forcibly ejected and traveled distances up to a hundreds of meters. Pieces of WTC 1 hit WTC 7, severing six columns on Floors 7 through 17 on the south face and one column on the west face near the soutwest corner. The debris also caused structural damage between Floor 44 and the roof.”

NIST NCSTAR 2.2.2 (page 16)
More sources for Quotes:



NIST Claims To Have No Steel Samples From WTC7
NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 “because no steel was recovered from WTC7, it is not possible to make any statements about it’s quality”
“Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality.” – NCSTAR 1-3D, Page 273 (SEP 2005)
“No steel from WTC 7 has been identified from the pieces of recovered WTC steel in NIST’s possession….” – Progress Report, Volume 1, Page 17 (JUN 2004)
“no steel was recovered from WTC 7” – NCSTAR 1-3, Page iii (SEP 2005)
“no steel from the building was recovered ” – NCSTAR 1-3, Page xxxvii (SEP 2005)
“no steel from WTC 7 was recovered from the site” – NCSTAR 1-3, Page 1 (SEP 2005)
“NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7” – NCSTAR 1-3, Page 114 (SEP 2005)
“No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7” – NCSTAR 1-3, Page 115 (SEP 2005)
“The lack of WT 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure…” – NCSTAR 1-3B, Page iii (SEP 2005)
“No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7. ” -NCSTAR 1-3B, Page. 26, (SEP 2005)
“No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC7.” – NCSTAR 1-3C, Page 5 (SEP 2005)
NCSTAR 1-3C pg 233 [pdf p. 283]
“A study further states that temperatures were in the range from 700°C to 800°C (Finding 5).
However, very limited supporting evidence was given for this claim. Unlike the analysis of the steel from WTC 7 (Sample #1 from Appendix C, BPAT/FEMA study) where corrosion phases and morphologies were able to determine a possible temperature region”
“WTC 7 steel was not evaluated in this study of the tower damage.”
JOM [Journal of Metals] An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
“A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001.”
NIST claims to have recovered no steel from Building 7 but thanks to this FOIA request. NIST clearly labelled in their diagram that 8 pieces of steel was believed to be recovered from Building 7.




“In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.”


Graphic showing the buckling of WTC 7 Column 79 (circled area), the local failure identified as the initiating event in the building’s progressive collapse.
Credit: NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory
View hi-resolution image

“The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event—the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections…” FAQ’s (question 7)
“This graphic shows how thermal expansion led to the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7). Heat from fires expanded steel beams on the east side of WTC 7, damaging the framing on multiple floors (top drawing). Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, and caused Floor 13 to collapse (bottom drawing). The cascade of floor failures that followed left Column 79 unsupported. When Column 79 buckled, it initiated the global collapse of the building.”

Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports – Part 3 of 5

“Compare these two paragraphs. In the excerpted paragraph of the 2004 report, NIST says that studs were used with both beams and girders, although the studs “were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders” (the girder associated with column 79, by the way, was not a core girder). In the 2008 report, however, not only does NIST drop the association of girders with shear studs (first sentence of excerpted paragraph), but then they go on to imply that studs were not indicated at all on the girders (last sentence of excerpted paragraph)”
Groundbreaking WTC7 Video Exposé: Independent Investigators Reveal Critical Errors and Omissions in NIST Report

“This project was suggested after a careful study of NIST’s Final Report on WTC7 showed that the initiation of the building’s collapse was officially blamed on the failure of a single connection where a long-span girder met Column 79 on Floor 13. When we considered that such a huge controversy allegedly began from a single connection failure, we decided to take a closer look at that event.”

(I have all the other frames as well)

How did Column 79 buckle like this? What evidence does NIST have that this happened to column 79?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: