The mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 : why the final official report about 9/11 is unscientific and false

Author of several notable books about the 9/11 attacks, Griffin (Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University) explores the collapse of the World Trade Center's Building 7, which--unlike the Twin Towers--was not struck by an airplane. In an examination of the National Institute of Standards and Technology report on the collapse, the author suggests that the report's conclusions are not supported by good science. Instead, charges Griffin, NIST is guilty of fabricating, falsifying, and ignoring evidence. At 5:20 In The Afternoon On 9/11, Building 7 Of The World Trade Center Collapsed, Even Though It Had Not Been Struck By A Plane And Had Fires On Only A Few Floors. The Reason For Its Collapse Was Considered A Mystery. In August 2008, Nist (the National Institute Of Standards And Technology) Issued Its Report On Wtc 7, Declaring That The Reason For The Collapse Of World Trade Center 7 Is No Longer A Mystery And That Science Is Really Behind What We Have Said. Showing That Neither Of These Claims Is True, David Ray Griffin Demonstrates That Nist Is Guilty Of The Most Serious Types Of Scientific Fraud: Fabricating, Falsifying, And Ignoring Evidence. He Also Shows That Nist's Report Left Intact The Central Mystery: How Could A Building Damaged By Fire - Not Explosives - Have Come Down In Free Fall?--pub. Desc. Nist As A Political, Not A Scientific, Agency -- Some Principles Of Scientific Method -- Nist's Refusal To Begin With The Most Likely Hypothesis -- Nist's Ignoring Of Physical Evidence For Explosives -- Nist's Ignoring Of Testimonial Evidence For Explosives -- Nist's Straw-man Arguments Against Explosives -- Nist's Theory Of An Unprecedented Collapse : An Overview -- The Initiation And Spread Of Fires : Nist's Unempirical Account -- Fire And Steel Temperatures : Implausible Claims Based On Distorted Data -- From Thermal Expansion To Global Collapse : Fabrications And Contradictions. By David Ray Griffin. Includes Bibliographical References And Index. Table of Contents......Page 7 Acknowledgments......Page 8 Frequently Cited Works......Page 9 Introduction: The Background To NIST's WTC 7 Report......Page 11 Part I: NIST's Unscientific Rejection of the Most Likely Theory......Page 23 1. NIST as a Political, Not Scientific, Agency......Page 25 2: Some Principles of the Scientific Method......Page 35 3. NIST's Refusal to Begin with the Most Likely Hypothesis......Page 49 4. NIST's Ignoring of Physical Evidence for Explosives......Page 55 5. NIST's Ignoring of Testimonial Evidence for Explosives......Page 97 6. NIST's Strawman Arguments Against Explosives......Page 147 Part II: NIST's Unscientific Arguments for Its Own Theory......Page 167 7. NIST's Theory of an Unprecedented Collapse: An Overview......Page 169 8. The Initiation and Spread of Fires......Page 179 9. Fire & Steel Temperatures......Page 201 10. Fabrications and Contradictions......Page 231 Conclusion: NIST's WTC 7 Report as Unscientific & False......Page 267 Appendix A: Why Did Explosions in WTC 7 Start By 9:30 AM?......Page 283 Appendix B: Another Towering Inferno That Did Not Collapse......Page 289 Notes......Page 292 s/t: Why the Official Final Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific & False At 5:20 in the afternoon on 9/11, Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed, even though it had not been struck by a plane and had fires on only a few floors. The reason for its collapse was considered a mystery. In August 2008, NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) issued its report on WTC 7, declaring that "the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery" and that "science is really behind what we have said." Showing that neither of these claims is true, David Ray Griffin demonstrates that NIST is guilty of the most serious types of scientific fraud: fabricating, falsifying, and ignoring evidence. He also shows that NIST's report left intact the central mystery: How could a building damaged by fire - not explosives - have come down in free fall?