Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7?

Mick West

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:
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.


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

Mick West

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.



Mick West

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.



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?


Senior 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.


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


New Member
The final report is NCSTAR 1A and is 88 pages long. It is titled "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" and I have read my printed copy of it cover to cover several times. The publication you referenced NCSTAR 1-9 is actually the technical documentation which is summarized in the Final Report. It's interesting to dive into if you really want to get into the nitty-gritty of something specific, but NCSTAR 1A is much more realistic to digest. NCSTAR 1A is the document that's meant to be read, and it summarizes NIST's methodologies and findings in much greater depth than the FAQ.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Leonardo Cuellar GoFast : Is the "Ocean" Background Actually Clouds? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 4
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Z.W. Wolf "Drone" Photo over Colorado - Actually a Boeing 737 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 12
Mick West Was the Steel Border Wall Prototype actually "Sawed Through?" Current Events 3
Trailblazer Debunked: CNN reported "psyop" re London Bridge attack [actually "SIOC"] Current Events 0
Mick West New permalink format (actually permanent) Site Feedback & News 2
J So I know this isn't actually Nibiru, but what actually is it? [Probably Mars] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 18
Z.W. Wolf Debunked - Photo of Hitler and Henry Ford Together [actually Wilhelm Frick] General Discussion 3
Balance Taurus Molecular Cloud Generator - actually an oil field firefighter Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Debunked: Photo claiming to be Iraqi Chemical WMDs in Syria [Photo is actually in Utah] General Discussion 11
Mick West Debunked: Container of Weapons Destined for Refugees In Europe [Actually for Libyan Fighters] General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: Proof that MH-17 is MH-370? [MH-17 actually did have a covered window] Flight MH17 11
Mick West Debunked: "Partly Cloudy" 1990/2014 Photo Comparison [Actually 2011/2012] Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Mick West Debunked: High Bypass Turbofans do not make Contrails [actually they make more] Contrails and Chemtrails 150
Oxymoron How much of the Smoke Around WTC7 actually from WTC7? 9/11 20
MikeC Video that does actually support hypothesis with evidence Contrails and Chemtrails 1
MikeC Debunked: NASA Scientist Admitting 'Chemtrails' for decades (actually Sounding Rockets) Contrails and Chemtrails 17
Kevin45345 Climate change deniers: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere General Discussion 2
lee h oswald WTC: Architects and Engineers, what percentage actually disagree with NIST? 9/11 9
tryblinking How many people actually believe in 'chemtrails'? Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Leifer You won't read everything in this thread...... Practical Debunking 17
S Did NIST edit WTC building 7 footage? 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Jedo How can we interpret witness reports of buckling? 9/11 5
gerrycan Did NIST examine Steel from WTC7? 9/11 16
Mick West False Authority: "Thoughts From a Former NIST Employee" on 9/11 9/11 92
Truthful New published physics article points out NIST limitations and need for new investigation. Conspiracy Theories 3
Major_Tom Do Subpixel Video Measurements Reveal Errors in the NIST account of 9/11? 9/11 17
Playing Games AE911Truth To File LawsuitTo End FEMA/NIST Stonewalling 9/11 179
gerrycan AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False 9/11 161
Oxymoron Professional Witnesses Disagree With NIST i.e. Ladder 15 we've got two isolated pockets of fire. 9/11 57
Mick West Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
hiper Did NIST lack focus? 9/11 8
Landru Did NIST lie and claim that the fires melted steel? 9/11 13
Mick West N.F.P.A. 921 - Did NIST disregard it in investigating 9/11? 9/11 60
Related Articles

Related Articles