View Single Post
Old 01-24-2013, 03:34 PM   #190
Ring of Famer

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,521

What did the FEMA Report say? Read on.

The 2002 FEMA report can be downloaded here:

Chapter Five was devoted to WTC-7.
Download here:

On page 5-31 the chapter concluded:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

In other words, FEMA was unable to show how fires caused the collapse -- and called for further study. But the "best fire hypothesis" in FEMA's view had only a low probability.

The important metallurgical analysis by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson can be downloaded here:

On page C-13 the authors concluded:

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.

The authors thus were at a loss to explain the eutectic phenomenon. Something lowered the melting point of steel by ~700 degrees F

Notice, the authors state that the corrosion of the steel may have occurred BEFORE the collapse. This leaves the door wide open to explosives.

They called for further research -- yet -- NIST conspicuously ignored their analysis.

In a post above I incorrectly stated that thermate includes sodium. I meant sulfur. It is the presence of sulfur that causes the eutectic phenomenon -- lowering the melting point of steel.

Even though the use of explosives was the most obvious and logical explanation, NIST refused event to consider it. The NIST report was biased from the get go -- and thus cannot be considered conclusive or comprehensive.

It was in fact a cover up.


Last edited by mhgaffney; 01-24-2013 at 03:39 PM..
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote