The N&O editor cheerfully set science aside with today’s headline Feds debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories. The story is about NIST’s report claiming the 47-story WTC7 building’s structural failure was due to fire.
Like hell it was. At least the Associated Press’s headline (“Feds: Fire took down building next to twin towers”)was not so judgmental against those who can plainly see NIST’s theory is bullshit.
In light of the Bush administration’s blatant politicization of science at every possible turn, wouldn’t you think that announcements like these deserve a more critical eye? Wouldn’t a healthy grain of salt be prudent? At the very least, perhaps not be so dismissive of those skeptical to the “official” story?
Personally, I say “show me.” Perhaps the NIST would like to publicly demonstrate how a steel-and-concrete building can completely collapse from the heat of a few hundred gallons of diesel fuel. I mean, that’s laughable on its face. Show me how you can make a steel-and-concrete building vaporize from a diesel fuel fire and then I’ll believe it.
Or, does NIST’s conclusions mean that all diesel generators should immediately be banned from commercial buildings, because tens of thousands of similar buildings are at risk of imminent collapse? Does NIST’s conclusion imply that the buildings we work in every day – the steel and concrete buildings that make up every city – are structurally unsound? Able to be turned to rubble by a fuel fire? If so, we’ve got far more serious issues to deal with.
How can a 5.4 earthquake rock Los Angeles yet none of its steel-and-concrete buildings turned to dust like WTC7?
I will dig into the NIST’s report because I want to know its side of the story. I expect it to be quite an entertaining read.
Um, did you actually read the AP article? Quote:
“Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city’s emergency operations command center.
The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.”
So, your question of “how a steel-and-concrete building can completely collapse from the heat of a few hundred gallons of diesel fuel” is completely irrelevant.
If you’re suggesting a conspiracy, what is the motive?
I’m not suggesting anything, I just want to see the proof.
If diesel fuel wasn’t the culprit, what caused the “critical steel support column” to fail? WTC7 looked like a healthy building to me. How come this has never happened before in the history of steel and concrete buildings? If one column can pulverize an entire building, we’re all in deep doodoo.
NIST is not magically immune to the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” rule. If NIST is going to claim something that has never happened before in the history of hundreds of thousands of steel and concrete buildings – that an “extraordinary event” (their words!) brought down the building – it damn well better be able to prove it. The burden of proof is totally on NIST.
I’ve admitted I have not read the report, but what I’ve heard so far fails to convince me. I want to see NIST recreate this event and demonstrate its conclusions. Its report should also be peer-reviewed. That’s how science works.
“Loose Change” has a great section on this … the film shows buildings around the world that have burned longer but did not collapse that are way bigger than WTC7 … I’m suggesting a conspiracy.
I vote for space aliens from the same planet as our Vice President.