1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxntZh8FcNo

    The full NIST report on the fires and collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NCSTAR 1-9, is nearly 800 pages long. Lots of people in the 9/11 Truth community dismiss it, but very few have even skimmed through it, let alone read the pertinent parts.

    Here I do the skimming through part. I do this to give you an idea of just how large and comprehensive it it. Even in this rapid-fire overview you can see the hundred pages they spend on precisely mapping the spread of the fires, and the hundreds more on investigating the possible causes of collapse via simulations. Feel free to pause at any point. All the pages are there.

    If you are going to form an intellectually honest opinion on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 then by all means read the information provided by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and others. But intellectual honesty requires knowledge of other positions before you can reject them. At the very least you should start with the NIST WTC7 FAQ:

    And then watch the description of how they conducted the investigation

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc

    Then you will probably have questions. Be intellectually honest and unafraid. Do your own research. Read the NIST report:
    • Like Like x 4
    • Useful Useful x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. Thanks for the link, Mick!

    Since the Husley thread, I've been thinking I should read it, but thus far I'd been too lazy to look for it.

    Now I've got no excuse.
  3. FFTR

    FFTR New Member

    Yes, I have read the NIST report. The finding of fire as the probable cause of the collapse seems reasonable to me.
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    A word of caution, it seems some people who think they have read the NIST report on WTC7 have actually only read the "Draft for Public Comments" version which was released on August 1 2008. The actual report has both volumes combined into one file, and was released on November 20th, 2008. Both versions are still available on the NIST site, but some other 9/11 related sites only have the older version.

    There are a few differences, but of particular note is section 12.5.3, the analysis of the collapse progression. This is quite a bit more detailed in the final version.


    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    One difference is in the diagrams showing the ANSYS damage output. The draft has a vector image, in the final this is replaced with a lower resolution bitmap which is harder to read, but also has the buckled beams differentiated from the "loss of vertical support" beams.
    Move slider to compare.

    20170928-145851-kbmt3. 20170928-145913-3uf6p.
  6. Fievel Mousekewitz

    Fievel Mousekewitz New Member

    Thank you, I knew it was on their site someplace, I just couldn't find it.
  7. Paul Edward

    Paul Edward New Member

    Can anybody give me a version history of the NIST WTC7 report?

    I've seen Truthers whining about NIST constantly changing their story. They say when the few seconds of freefall was pointed to them they hastily revised the report to downplay this, blah, blah.....

    I've downloaded the final version of the report from the NIST website. Were there interim versions? If so what changed? Is there a detailed version history record?
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  9. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Note that they also published several "Errata" - corrections of errors - subsequent to the final report on WTC7:

    Those Errata were dated "(January 2009, April 2012, and June 2012)".
    The June 2012 Erratum corrected typographical errors - the text as printed in the report contained wrong numbers, but these wrong numbers were not actually used in the analysis the text describes, the correct values were used.
    Some truthers have made some wind about this, suspecting that NIST flat out lies and used the wrong, rather than right, values in the underlying analysis.
  10. CalgaryPatty

    CalgaryPatty New Member

    Long doesn’t necessarily mean comprehensive. I could prove gravity doesn’t exist with pseudo science as well.
  11. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    The issue here (at this site) is that if you feel something has bunk, remove it. Use evidence to support your claim.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    So: Have you actually read the NIST report on WTC7?
    Do you claim it's not comrehensive, and if so, what do you base that claim on? If not, why do you bring it up?
    Do you claim the NIST report is pseudo science? What do you base this on?

    Do the intellectually honest thing - read the NIST report, know its structure, content, scope, method - and then point out any bunk you might think there is by properly citing it and providing reasons why you think it's bunk.

    What you wrote there could be applied to any video DVD by AE911Truth or other Truthers, could be said about those just so, without watching even a single second. It's cheap rethoric, empty of actionable information. It's intellectually dishonest to dismis the report without actually reading it.