Two weeks ago, NIST finally released it's draft of it's report investigating the collapse of WTC 7. This is a postion of the transcript during which Dr. Sunder, lead investigator, answered questions about the report. The report determined that WTC 7 did not collapse due to damage from falling debris from other WTC towers, nor from diesel fueled fires from storage tanks, nor from explosives....but from fire initiated by impacts from falling WTC 1 debris, causing "ordinary building fires"....fueled by combustible office contents ONLY!
Quote:
Transcript of NIST Presentation and Reporter Questions WTC 7
Reporter: The part that I have trouble with is that you say it came down without explosives at all and is it possible you wouldn't need a lot of explosives to bring it down if it came down with explosives at all?
NIST's Sunder: Repeat your question.
Reporter: If you say the building came down with no explosives whatsoever isn't it possible that it could come down with a snaller number of explosives?
NIST's Sunder: No. The big difference is fire is a persistent assault on the structure. What?
Reporter: The explosives and the fire.
NIST's Sunder: Let me put it this way. There is a very elegant and straightforward and based on sound science and is consistent with observations with the fact that the fires were on the lower floors of the building.
Reporter: This has never happened before, right?
NIST's Sunder: But it's consistent and sound and analyzed, and we have the reults. We are very comfortable with our findings...
|
Will building demo contractors use Dr. Sunder's new method of collapsing high rise steel building into their own footprints....simply setting fires in lower floors and waiting....instead of by planting expensive and risky explosive charges?
Is this believable to you?