WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

[Peter F]

Here is a excellent explaination for the collapse of the towers that is easier to read than the NIST report:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html

The author is:

Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT

Someone who is infinitely more qualified to comment on the topic than any of the thruthies.

From the link:

To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

...the fundamental point Polly cannot grasp.

[kimmy]

While the Truthies are all every excited about Jim Hoffman's work that "proves" there was an "energy deficit," they don't seem to recognize that Hoffman's calculations also pretty much dismiss the possibility of conventional explosives. The size of Hoffman's "energy deficity" is such that it would require over 4,000,000 kilograms of conventional explosives to provide the "missing energy". Obviously, that sheer mass makes any plot involving conventional explosives or controlled demolitions utterly absurd.

Which, I assume, is why some of the Truthies are proposing the existence of fantasy technology such as satellite-mounted doomsday weapons, or nuclear bombs that instead of exploding, cause metal and concrete to "dustify". If one accepts Hoffman's calculations, then one has to believe that such fantasy technologies exist, because there's no other explanation for how the "energy deficit" could have been satisfied.

But forget that. What excitement that Rosie O'Donnell has taken this mainstream.

The Truthies have fake physicists, fake colonels, fake engineers, fake doctors of thermodynamics, fake military experts ...and now, a fake celebrity. woo-hoo! Everybody is getting onboard the Truthwagon!!

-k

[kuzadd]

"First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself."

why is it a vacuum tube?

"Second, there is no lateral load,"

doesn't the wind qualify as making a lateral load??

In fact, wouldn't wind qualify as the most common lateral load against any structure??

Yes it would.

"Most lateral loads are live loads whose main component is a horizontal force acting on the structure. Typical lateral loads would be a wind load against a facade, an earthquake, the earth pressure against a beach front retaining wall or the earth pressure against a basement wall. Most lateral loads vary in intensity depending on the building's geographic location"

so how can Eager realistically state that, there was no lateral load.

even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity.

"To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."

gosh, so many earthquakes, in the world, and darn those buildings forget to collapse nearly straight down, what's with that???

how about wtc # 7, no plane???

total collapse.

[Riverwind]

"First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself."

why is it a vacuum tube?

It means there is nothing preventing it from imploding.

"Second, there is no lateral load,"

doesn't the wind qualify as making a lateral load??In fact, wouldn't wind qualify as the most common lateral load against any structure?? Yes it would.

There was no wind that day.

gosh, so many earthquakes, in the world, and darn those buildings forget to collapse nearly straight down, what's with that???

Earthquakes are an external force that provide a 'lateral load'.

how about wtc # 7, no plane???

total collapse.

No plane but it was hit by 100s of tonnes on debris when the WTC1 and 2 collapsed. Pictures make it clear that the damage to WTC7 was at least as bad as the damage to WTC1 & 2.

[BC_chick]

Maybe he's just too sane to want the site cluttered up with looneys and their kooky conspiracy theories. There are far too many of them here now, and far too many who are several bricks shy of a full load willing to take them at least partially seriously.

Even if 9/11 was not what the conspiracy-theorists make out to be, look throughout history..... attacks on your own nation to stage is war are nothing new. Therefore using the word "kook" is a little excessive given that there are precedences for such events.

Also, the flip-side of the "kook" is the "sheep" who believe everything and anything which comes from authority. They are are just as dangerous.

Aim to be critical-thinker who questions things yet isn't being absorbed by mistrust and pessimism. It's a much more healthy balance than being a "sheep" or a "kook."

[Wilber]

Even if 9/11 was not what the conspiracy-theorists make out to be, look throughout history..... attacks on your own nation to stage is war are nothing new. Therefore using the word "kook" is a little excessive given that there are precedences for such events.

It would be for any of the western democracies. Sure, they have used certain events to get approval for going to war but name one instance where they have staged an attack on themselves and killed their own people to do it.

[PolyNewbie]

PeterF

From the link:

QUOTE

To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

...the fundamental point Polly cannot grasp.

Its a stupid comment - actually a 500,000 ton structure behaves no differently than a 5 ounce structure wrt inertia. No building has ever collapsed the way the buildings did on sept 11 without the collaspe being caused by controlled demolition.

The idea that the building is so heavy that it must only go straight down is utterly stupid and has no scientific basis anywhere. Its the dumbest thing that has ever been said by the government apologists that depend on government contracts to make a living.

All supports all around the building had to give away at the exact same moment for the building to collapse straight down - impossible since damage makes loads less balanced, not more.

"First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself."

Thats not true. Anyone can see there are supports inside the buildings to prevent exactly that from happening - most of the supports that were in wtc7 were not damaged in any way. I wonder if the person who wrote that was sitting inside a building when they said that.

"Second, there is no lateral load,"

If one support breaks before another the building will start to rotate. No lateral load needed.

[ScottSA]

Its a stupid comment - actually a 500,000 ton structure behaves no differently than a 5 ounce structure wrt inertia. No building has ever collapsed the way the buildings did on sept 11 without the collaspe being caused by controlled demolition.

The idea that the building is so heavy that it must only go straight down is utterly stupid and has no scientific basis anywhere. Its the dumbest thing that has ever been said by the government apologists that depend on government contracts to make a living.

All supports all around the building had to give away at the exact same moment for the building to collapse straight down - impossible since damage makes loads less balanced, not more.

"First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself."

Thats not true. Anyone can see there are supports inside the buildings to prevent exactly that from happening - most of the supports that were in wtc7 were not damaged in any way. I wonder if the person who wrote that was sitting inside a building when they said that.

You will never accept reality, will you? I guess more correctly, you'll never be able to fathom reality.

[Riverwind]

If one support breaks before another the building will start to rotate. No lateral load needed.

You missed the key point:

Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity

Large masses take large forces acting over a period of time to get them to move. The top of one of the buildings started to rotate, however, the rest of the building collapsed under it before it could actually rotate far enought to tip over. At that point, the top of the building continued to rotate as it fell straight down, however, the downward momentum soon exceeded any rotational momentum that it had. IOW - it hit the ground before it could tip.

It is extremely difficult to get a building like the WTC towers to tip because tipping requires that part of the structure support the entire weight of the building above a pivot point while it is rotating. These structures do not have that much redundancy so the pivot point will always collapse before the top can acquire any significant rotational momentum. The result will almost always be what we saw on 9/11: slow initial rotation as the building weakens followed by a fast straight down collapse.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind It is extremely difficult to get a building like the WTC towers to tip because tipping requires that part of the structure support the entire weight of the building above a pivot point while it is rotating. These structures do not have that much redundancy so the pivot point will always collapse before the top can acquire any significant rotational momentum. The result will almost always be what we saw on 9/11: slow initial rotation as the building weakens followed by a fast straight down collapse.

So what kind of engineer are you ? Why can't you answer this question ?

I'd like to know where you got this idea of a pivot point required for rotation and would like to look at some text books that may be about building collapses in your discipline. It all sounds foolish to me.

Riverwind Large masses take large forces acting over a period of time to get them to move.

The same thing occurs with small masses. Large masses do not operate under differnt physical rules than small ones.

[PolyNewbie]

ScottsA You will never accept reality, will you? I guess more correctly, you'll never be able to fathom reality.

I am curious to know if you have ever taken a course in science or for any other reason could have the slightest idea about what you are talking about on this thread. You just echo the beliefs of others that obviously have no scientific background either - I suspect because you think its cool.

[PolyNewbie]

Why don't you guys write into NIST and explain to them why wtc7 collapsed. It seems that they should be taking advice from you apologists on this forum because they cannot figure it out.

I wonder why that melted metal was never tested to see if it was aluminum or structural steel. Don't you apologists ever wonder about this ?

[Riverwind]

I'd like to know where you got this idea of a pivot point required for rotation and would like to look at some text books that may be about building collapses in your discipline. It all sounds foolish to me.

Acceleration requires a force acting over a period of time and angular acceleration requires a torque (which implies a pivot point). If the force disappears then acceleration stops, however, motion does continue. The amount rotational momentum acquired depends on how long the force was applied. An isolated body in space would rotate forever.

However, the top of a tower is not an isolated body in space. When the pivot point collapses gravity will cause the tower to accelerate straight down. In theory, it could tip over if it acquired enough rotational momentum before the pivot point collapsed. However, this is extremely unlikely because these buildings are not designed with enough redundancy to allow a pivot point to support the entire weight of the building above it. If the pivot point collapses quickly the top of the building will hit the ground before it can tip over.

I wonder why that melted metal was never tested to see if it was aluminum or structural steel. Don't you apologists ever wonder about this ?

Why should they? There is not one shred of conclusive evidence which supports the thruthie theories and a lot of evidence that makes it extremely improbable. Investigating it would have been a waste of time and money. That said, NIST will include a 'blast analysis' in its report on WTC7 which will not likely satisfy thruthies but will directly address the issues raised.

[PolyNewbie]

kimmy Which, I assume, is why some of the Truthies are proposing the existence of fantasy technology such as satellite-mounted doomsday weapons, or nuclear bombs that instead of exploding, cause metal and concrete to "dustify". If one accepts Hoffman's calculations, then one has to believe that such fantasy technologies exist, because there's no other explanation for how the "energy deficit" could have been satisfied.

Yes kimmy there will be speculation on how the buildings collapsed. The thing that is obvious is that they did not collapse like that under their own weight and no one has ever seen a collapse like that.

Something caused that concrete to turn to dust, those big explosions and all that heat that melted the metal and made it glow red hot. It wasn't the potential energy of the buildings.

You being a high school graduate should know your own limitations and probably not attempt to make a fool out of a well respected scientist who has published in respected scientific journals throughout his career. He may actually know more about science than your teachers.

then one has to believe that such fantasy technologies exist

Of course fanatasy technologies exist. The public is not privy to the most advanced programs in the US military. The blackbird aircraft was around since the 60's yet its existance didn't become mainstream knowledge until the eighties when it decommisioned then recommisioned for NASA. Scientific knowledge grows exponentially. You would have to be an ignorant fool to say that these fantasy technologies that stretch the imagination do not exist.

[kuzadd]

"First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself."

why is it a vacuum tube?

It means there is nothing preventing it from imploding.

"Second, there is no lateral load,"

doesn't the wind qualify as making a lateral load??In fact, wouldn't wind qualify as the most common lateral load against any structure?? Yes it would.

There was no wind that day.

gosh, so many earthquakes, in the world, and darn those buildings forget to collapse nearly straight down, what's with that???

Earthquakes are an external force that provide a 'lateral load'.

how about wtc # 7, no plane???

total collapse.

No plane but it was hit by 100s of tonnes on debris when the WTC1 and 2 collapsed. Pictures make it clear that the damage to WTC7 was at least as bad as the damage to WTC1 & 2.

"It means there is nothing preventing it from imploding."

So then what encouraged it to implode, because virtually ANY structure is roughly 95% air, why don't all buildings then therfore implode??

Because following this line of logic, buildings should be imploding every time, some external force is imposed upon it.

"There was no wind that day."

That is unadulterated baloney, there is always wind, airflow, ESPECIALLY at that height (altitude), and because wtc 1 and 2 were near water.

unless you are referring to groundlevel, other then that , that is a ridiculous claim.

"Earthquakes are an external force that provide a 'lateral load'. "

and so is wind. and so is weakening a building through a corner impact as happened in wtc #2, but Thomas Eager says , there was NO lateral load. So in his faulty logic, no lateral load, no reason for the buildings to tip, BS!!!

wrt# 7: buildings 3, 4, 5 & 6 were also hit with debris, in fact far more so then 7, which was the furthest from wtc 1 and 2, none of those buildings globally collapsed, they were demolished at a later date. try again?

do you belive in magic?

[kimmy]

Yes kimmy there will be speculation on how the buildings collapsed. The thing that is obvious is that they did not collapse like that under their own weight and no one has ever seen a collapse like that.

Something caused that concrete to turn to dust, those big explosions and all that heat that melted the metal and made it glow red hot. It wasn't the potential energy of the buildings.

You being a high school graduate should know your own limitations and probably not attempt to make a fool out of a well respected scientist who has published in respected scientific journals throughout his career. He may actually know more about science than your teachers.

First off, he's not a "well respected scientist." He's a computer programmer and graphics expert. His contributions to Scientific American magazine consist of computer graphics for their articles. His contribution to the "PhD research in multidimensional surfaces" (or whatever it was) was, likewise, graphics.

Hoffman's credentials, like just about everybody else in the "Truth Movement", have been ridiculously inflated by the Truthies who want to appeal to his theories.

Secondly, I didn't dispute Hoffman's conclusions (though others have trashed his basic quite thoroughly, particularly with respect to the particle-size samples which form the basis for his calculations.) I simply stated that if you believe Hoffman's calculations, then you *have* to believe that fantasy technologies were used, because no conventional technology could have supply enough energy to make up Hoffman's energy deficit while still being covert. Hoffman's energy deficit equates to 4,000,000 kilograms of conventional explosives; there's no way such quantities could be installed or detonated covertly.

If Hoffman's calculations are correct, then fantasy technology had to have been used to destroy the WTC.

If such fantasy technologies don't exist, then Hoffman's calculations can't be correct.

It's obviously one or the other. I don't claim to know for sure which it is; I just have a high school education. I leave it up to people to decide for themselves which is more likely.

then one has to believe that such fantasy technologies exist

Of course fanatasy technologies exist. The public is not privy to the most advanced programs in the US military. The blackbird aircraft was around since the 60's yet its existance didn't become mainstream knowledge until the eighties when it decommisioned then recommisioned for NASA. Scientific knowledge grows exponentially. You would have to be an ignorant fool to say that these fantasy technologies that stretch the imagination do not exist.

The Blackbird's just an airplane. A really, really fast airplane, sure, but an airplane nonetheless. It doesn't stretch the imagination that somebody could build faster airplane.

What the truthies propose, however, does stretch the imagination, and seems to be well beyond any technology used anywhere by anyone.

I would think well-known principles relating to diffraction and scattering would make it a physical impossibility for a space-mounted weapon to provide the surgical precision which would be necessary to cause a "controlled demolition".

If that's not good enough reason to doubt the existence of such a device, one could look at the energy/weight ratio of any electrical storage device ever devised and draw some conclusions about the likelihood that some satellite contributed the 18 TerraJoules of energy that Hoffman claims is unaccounted for. To contribute that quantity of energy to the WTC collapses, this satellite would have to be roughly the size of the George Lucas Death Star.

And nuclear devices that don't explode but instead turn stuff into dust? What's the mechanism that causes the "dustification", if not the heat and energy of an explosion? Magic? Evil spirits? Truth-rays? Negative Orgones?

I think we all understand that the US military has access to technologies beyond what Mr Public has access to or even knowledge of. But they're not wizards. They can't do magic. They have a hard enough time doing stuff that conventional technology should make possible-- like intercepting missiles or building lasers that are powerful enough for battlefield use. Why would I believe they can perform acts of magic that defy any normal understanding of physics when they're having a hard time doing the possible?

-k

[Riverwind]

and so is wind. and so is weakening a building through a corner impact as happened in wtc #2, but Thomas Eager says , there was NO lateral load. So in his faulty logic, no lateral load, no reason for the buildings to tip, BS!!!

Read the article. The lack of significant lateral load is one of several reasons stated. The main reason is the buildings fell so qucikly that they hit the ground before any tipping could take place.

wrt# 7: buildings 3, 4, 5 & 6 were also hit with debris, in fact far more so then 7, which was the furthest from wtc 1 and 2, none of those buildings globally collapsed, they were demolished at a later date. try again?

So? You need to learn basic logic. Getting hit by debris makes a collapse possible - it does not make it 100% likely. WTC3 through 6 did not collapse even though they were hit by debris yet WTC7 did. Nothing strange about that because all of the buildings were damaged in different ways and had different construction.

[PolyNewbie]

kimmy First off, he's not a "well respected scientist." He's a computer programmer and graphics expert. His contributions to Scientific American magazine consist of computer graphics for their articles. His contribution to the "PhD research in multidimensional surfaces" (or whatever it was) was, likewise, graphics.

Hoffman's credentials, like just about everybody else in the "Truth Movement", have been ridiculously inflated by the Truthies who want to appeal to his theories.

The math in computer graphics can be as sophisticated as anything else. Hoffman has shown that mathematical problems that were not solvable can be solved with computer graphics. I think he has also proved theorems that had not been proven - not sure exactly but I know he has done groundbreaking math modelling research on material science solving problems that could not be solved any other way using graphics and his work has been published by the best publications. Its not easy to get published in Nature or Scientific American. I doubt any of your teachers could match that.

Computer graphics can go a lot further than getting computers to draw straight lines using basic like you would learn in high school.

Stephen Jones is also very well respected having been chosen by the department of energy to head up the government research of cold fusion. I doubt any of your teachers were anywhere near as qualified in physics as Jones. He also did doctoral work at JPL.

These guys are way above a couple of structural engineers that get their paycheques from governments and investigate suspicious terrorist activities when the government doesn't want regular investigative authorities looking at the evidence ( I wonder why they are so careful about who gets to look at the evidence - national security concerns ? ).

Jones has also shown that the energy beam or nuke hypothesis is not a valid one.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind So? You need to learn basic logic.

Does your engineering discipline have something to do with logic ? Are you a mathematical modelling engineer ?

[kuzadd]

and so is wind. and so is weakening a building through a corner impact as happened in wtc #2, but Thomas Eager says , there was NO lateral load. So in his faulty logic, no lateral load, no reason for the buildings to tip, BS!!!

Read the article. The lack of significant lateral load is one of several reasons stated. The main reason is the buildings fell so qucikly that they hit the ground before any tipping could take place.

wrt# 7: buildings 3, 4, 5 & 6 were also hit with debris, in fact far more so then 7, which was the furthest from wtc 1 and 2, none of those buildings globally collapsed, they were demolished at a later date. try again?

So? You need to learn basic logic. Getting hit by debris makes a collapse possible - it does not make it 100% likely. WTC3 through 6 did not collapse even though they were hit by debris yet WTC7 did. Nothing strange about that because all of the buildings were damaged in different ways and had different construction.

I've read that article numerous times, previously.

Have you?

I am going to safely surmise, I have a far better grasp of basic logic then you do, so spare me your insults.

"Getting hit by debris makes a collapse possible - it does not make it 100% likely. WTC3 through 6 did not collapse even though they were hit by debris yet WTC7 did. Nothing strange about that because all of the buildings were damaged in different ways and had different construction."

Yes, there is something strange about that, because 3, 4, 5, & 6 were severely damaged and I mean severely damaged, yet they did NOT globally collapse.

But you are telling me that the building FURTHEST from 1 & 2 which sustained minor damage compared to the other buildings collapsed globally and that is not strange??

That makes no sense. So four buildings that sustained major damage, fail to globally and fully collapse,and are demolished at a later date, but the one the furthest away with the least damage globally collapses????

You have not addressed the lateral load, Eager says there was NO lateral load, Yet there was.

so explain in the face of definite presence of lateral load, why the buildings failed to tip?

Also Eager says because the buildings were approx 95% air, this predisposed them to implosion. How is this so?? Given all buildings are approx 95% air, think about it. Buildings should be imploding regularily , yet they are not.

[kuzadd]

wrt lateral load from wind

Wind loads specified by codes are based on maps of design wind speed for different regions of the country. As wind speed increases, the wind pressure on the building increases proportionally to the square of the wind velocity. The pressure on the building also varies with the height and degree of shielding provided by other buildings and geographic features. Although not usually required by building codes, engineers frequently use wind tunnel studies to more accurately determine wind loads on tall buildings, where standard calculations may not be adequate. WTC 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 all had extensive wind tunnel studies performed as part of the design process. WTC 1 and WTC 2 were among the first structures that were designed using wind tunnel studies.

wtc buildings, had extensive wind tunnel studies done on them because they were CONSTANTLY exposed to wind, which is a lateral load, therefore Eagers claim, that there was NO lateral load, is bogus, as 1 and 2 were over 1000 feet high, lots of wind, lots of lateral load, to tip the towers, yet they didn't.

wrt # 7, NIST has no conclusion as to why the tower globally collapsed, because there simply wasn't enough damage, from debris or fire.

wtc 7 interestingly was reinforced to the point that an entire floor could be taken out and it would not affect structural integrity.

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million

By MARK MCCAIN

Published: February 19, 1989

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...&pagewanted=all

LEAD: BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space.

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment.

'

'We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.

but somehow we are to believe that minor damage caused a global and complete collapse, to building # 7. but not 3,4,5,&6, while the buildings on either side of # 7 stood and strong as always.

It would demand suspension of all rationale and logic to believe that.

very strong building, very strong!

[stignasty]

but somehow we are to believe that minor damage caused a global and complete collapse, to building # 7.

No damage?

It's not hard to understand how debris from the first tower caused substantial damage to WTC7. http://static.flickr.com/144/326040175_3a2469b205_o.jpg

[kuzadd]

but somehow we are to believe that minor damage caused a global and complete collapse, to building # 7.

No damage?

and your point is?

I said minor damage, in relation to the fact of the very MAJOR damage sustained by 3,4,5, & 6, it was minor

damage.

WTC7 was a very,very strong building, see article posted.

wtc 7 was not subject to as much lateral load as wtc 1 and 2 ( no plane, not as tall)

wtc 7 was not hit by a plane.

therefore I ask, what is your exact point?

NIST and FEMA can't/haven't explain(ed) the collapse of wtc 7, when they allegedly had access to all the info.

why????

the 9/11 official commission conspiracy theory report, doesn't even acknolwedge wtc # 7.

why????

[Riverwind]

Yes, there is something strange about that, because 3, 4, 5, & 6 were severely damaged and I mean severely damaged, yet they did NOT globally collapse.

WTC3: 22 stories, WTC4: 9 stories, WTC5: 9 stories, WTC6: 8 stories, WTC7: 47 stories.

The buildings were completely different. It is irrational to claim that they should have behaved the same when damaged.

Futhermore, WTC7 had an unusual design because it was built on top of an electrical substation. The effect of this unsual construction will be discussed in NIST's report when they release it later this year.

Furthermore, there is evidence that directly contradicts your assertion that the other towers were damaged more than WTC7 or that their were few fires were present. You are simply making facts up in a desperate attempt to support your 'demolition fantasy'.

You have not addressed the lateral load, Eager says there was NO lateral load, Yet there was. so explain in the face of definite presence of lateral load, why the buildings failed to tip?

Even if there was some wind at higher attitudes there is no reason to believe that wind was large enough to cause the building to tip. You are making facts up gain.

Also Eager says because the buildings were approx 95% air, this predisposed them to implosion. How is this so?? Given all buildings are approx 95% air, think about it. Buildings should be imploding regularily , yet they are not.

Do terrorists fly planes into these kinds of buildings regularily? I have not heard of any. The WTC towers came down because these kinds of towers cannot withstand massive structural damage and out of control fires. Any structural engineer qualified to understand the problem believes that the buildings performed amazingly well and would have expected them to collapse sooner.

[stignasty]

wtc 7 was not hit by a plane.

You're right of course. It was hit by a 110 story building.

therefore I ask, what is your exact point?

My point is that you're calling a gigantic amount of damage "minor."

NIST and FEMA can't/haven't explain(ed) the collapse of wtc 7, when they allegedly had access to all the info.

why????

Well, actually, the NIST has explained it to be a combination of the massive damage suffered when the first tower fell into it, and the fires that softened the steel afterwards. Their full report is due out this spring, that doesn't mean they haven't expressed why the building collapsed (regardless of how many question marks you use).

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

*An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

*Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

*Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm