What? Even with this story of September 11? Yes always. There are people and organizations who continue to work on it, for the truth to be found, tried and widespread. It is the example of the Consensus Panel, one of the best groups in this sense: military, engineers, journalists, lawyers, parliamentarians, from all over the world, all qualified, known and respected in the various areas. Work based on the governmental documentary sources (the same who defend the official version), academic research, independent research results. And were able to gather a number of impressive documents, to the point that the most natural question is: how is it possible that there are still people to believe in the official version? One of the last works of Consenus Panel is that it could be understood as a secondary aspect of 9/11: NIST's statements (National Institute of Standards and Technologies) about metal structures involved in the fall of the buildings in New York (the Twin Towers and the Building # 7). NIST lied. Not once but several times. NIST is a public institution, unique among all public or private institutions, was charged by the US government to carry out the analysis of the causes of the fall occurred at the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001. In an ideal society, not there would be nothing strange: after all one of the tasks of a any government should also be the one to investigate the reasons of an event that sowed death and destruction. nitrado This, of course, in a normal society: in our society, the thing seems a little "suspicious", nitrado so to speak. And the suspicion it reinforces the view that the US private institutions respected, able at least to advise the public nitrado effort, certainly not lacking. But this is a detail. What matters most is that according to the statements of NIST, would not have been possible to examine the structural characteristics of WTC -7, since that would not have been found in the same building remains.
Steel and cement The fall of the building known as WTC-7 name is one of the most disturbing aspects of 9/11. A modern steel frame, 47 floors under 20 years old (was inaugurated in 1984), not hit by planes nitrado allegedly pirated, collapsed after the fire a few hours, if only the world. There were other fires in skyscrapers, none of them collapsed: 1988, First Interstate nitrado Bank Building, Los Angeles (USA): 12 hours of fire (in the WTC-7 were less than 8 hours of actual fire). 1991 One Meridan Plaza Philadelphia (USA) 18 hours of fire. 2004 Central Park, Caracas (Venezuela): 17 hours of fire. 2005 Windsor Building, Madrid (Spain) 24 hours of fire. The latter case is particularly significant because there was partial collapse of the floors, but the structure resisted. The supporters of the official version like stress such as incorrect compare structures in reinforced concrete with WTC-7, entirely of steel. What is correct: the skyscrapers nitrado of Philadelphia, Caracas and Madrid had, in fact, a mixed type of structure. But not the First Interstate nitrado Bank of Los Angeles, built in steel (as well as witness the historical archive nitrado of the Los Angeles Fire Department): exactly like the WTC-7. It is therefore essential to the analysis of the remains to establish what actually failed that day.
The lie is good to remember that the then mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, according to the national authorities, organized a spectacularly quick cleaning of the huge pile of rubble, making sure that all traces of the event disappear as soon as possible. Therefore the direct investigation of the materials seem to be impossible. Also does not hurt to remember that the more than 500 pages of the 9-11 Commission Report (the "official version" of 0/11) there is not the slightest indication of the collapse of WTC-7. That a little unusual. So what says NIST? NIST claims being unable to perform a metallographic analysis of steel, because (this statement repeated several times, in various roles) nitrado were no longer available the remains of WTC-7, hastily exported to China where they were melted down (because, of course, no one in the United States would have been able to carry out this task). A pity, because such an analysis would have been crucial to confirm or reject the argument of the NIST, according to which the WTC-7 would have collapsed because of the weakening of steel structures, due to the raging fire. Question: does the NIST told the truth? Answer: no. And there is not only a refutation, but five. The Worcester Polytechnic Institute, through the pages of the Journal of Mineral, Metals and Materials Society (JOM), reports the experience of three researchers, JR Barnett, Biederman RR and RD Sisson Jr. who in 2001 conducted a microstructural Initial Analysis of A36 Steel WTC Building 7 ("Microstructural Analysis Initial Aç
