Why the NIST WTC 7 Report is False (Youtube video)

OK, I watched, Ryan needs to avoid Valium when he's presenting his evidence; I'm ready to go to sleep, seriously.

It's kind of interesting; I would like to be able to see his slides up close. At least he's actually talking about real evidence like column 79 and has some photos of #7 that I've never seen before. He's also quoting the NIST report and pointing out what he thinks are errors but from what I've seen, he doesn't prove his case that the NIST report is false.

In other words, he's at least using evidence instead of saying things like, "fire can't melt..."

It's worth watching to see the photos.

If his presentation is available in PDF form, I would like to see it.

copied from http://www.journalof911studies.com/contact.html .Maybe you could send him an email requesting the details you are looking for.

Kevin Ryan
Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories
kncryan@msn.com

could jeopardize public safety?

Or are you just trying to convince ignorant folks to take a trip down the 9/11 truther hole?

causes the collapse of an office tower (part of it at freefall speed), but NIST says no one other than NIST's own staff can see their figures and check their sums to verify their results, i.e. no peer review.

If thermal expansion was the real cause of the WTC 7 collapse, it was a design flaw that was overlooked in the design of the building and could therefore be a flaw found in other skyscrapers and office towers as well. The design of all existing skyscrapers and office towers should now be examined ASAP so that the necessary retroactive engineering modifications can be made to protect against another free fall collapse like that of WTC 7. After all, if another building with the same flaw (or its contents) catches on fire it might collapse in a similar manner.

It would also be vitally important to ensure public safety that engineers and architects world wide be convinced that this is a heretofore unanticipated design flaw that was overlooked in building 7's design and which must immediately be taken into account in designing and fire proofing new buildings. NIST, by refusing to release the data behind its computer models, is in effect jeopardizing public safety by denying engineers and building designers and architects the opportunity to acquire a thorough understanding of how "thermal expansion" caused the destruction of WTC 7 so that adequate precautions can be taken against a reoccurrence in the future. To get the buyin of all the architects and engineers impacted by this they should be trumpeting their results from the rooftop and explaining in detail exactly how their calculations were arrived at. Instead they are in effect denying the possibility of a thorough peer review and independent verification of the accuracy of their report, contrary to the well established scientific method in matters of scientific inquiry like this. I think NIST withholding their data is more likely because they have valid concerns that their half baked, unscientific explanation would be blown out of the water if other engineers and scientists got hold of the actual data behind their black box computer models, rather than any genuine concerns over public safety.

For those who might say that NIST had an internal peer review process among the engineers and scientist who work for NIST, I invite you to watch the two videos linked above and make up your own mind as to whether you believe NIST went about their investigation of the WTC 7 collapse in an honest, forthright and scientific manner. Frankly, right now I'd even have second thoughts about asking them to investigate a fender bender in the neighborhood supermarket parking lot.

But it's not like this would be the first time the US government or its agents have bullshitted the US public. Just see my sig line, for example.

Pathetic, shameful, and revealing about their actual commitment to truth and knowledge.

That there was no peer review. Just because they are not releasing the file to the public does not mean there was no peer review.

Another assumption is the design flaw. Is there one? Buildings are designed per code requirements. If those requirements are changed due to these finding that information will be disseminated via a well established process. Your notion that engineers and designer need to have a thorough understanding of the collapse mechanism is a straw man at best.

The reason this information (IMO) is not being made public is because the information about connections (please note they are referring to data about the connection points) could very easily be used to identify critical weak points in a structure hence vastly improving one's ability to inflict more damage on a building than if one was taking educated guesses.

is because the information about connections (please note they are referring to data about the connection points) could very easily be used to identify critical weak points in a structure hence vastly improving one's ability to inflict more damage on a building than if one was taking educated guesses."

Or more likely it would show how they cooked the books in their investigation.

"That's a pretty big assumption that there was no peer review."

I think if NIST could assure the public that their findings had been corroborated by independent scientists and engineers they'd be sure to be crowing about it. However, if they are using bogus data in their models as some scientists and engineers strongly suspect, they would naturally ot to be too eager to share it with the wider engineering and scientific community.

I thought building structures were designed like airplanes to be fail safe so that if one or even a few structural members failed, the other surrounding structural members have more than enough strength to handle the increase in load. Apparently the designers and engineers who designed building 7 made a huge blunder in their design as, per the NIST theory, the failure of one beam/column intersection lead to the whole building falling in on itself.

Here's a video showing the computer simulations of the collapse released by NIST. NIST's computer simulations stop a few seconds after collapse initiation, i.e. the publicly released simulations from NIST did not show how the building fell all the way to the ground. Notice in the videos of the WTC 7 collapse both sides of the structure fall symmetrically. However the NIST simulations show at the onset of collapse most of the internal structure on the left side of the building fallen away and the top, left side external structure starting to deform inwards (not visible in the real-life videos) while on the right side of the building the beams, columns and other structural members remain relatively intact. The intact structure would therefore be available to resist the fall and slow the collapse down on that side of the building, which would not have lead to a symmetrical collapse. Then there's that second video simulation released by NIST which quite plainly is totally out to lunch.

WTC 7 NIST Model Reality Check: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnXeUIaYj3k

if you can.

Enlightening a truther is a monumental challenge.

But I can give you my opinion

The reason this information is not being made public is because the information about connections (please note they are referring to data about the connection points) could very easily be used to identify critical weak points in a structure hence vastly improving one's ability to inflict more damage on a building than if one was taking educated guesses.