"NIST omitted critical structural features from WTC 7 report." says Attorney to DoC Inspector Gen.

BrianG
They must have been three of the shoddiest ever to be built structures to fail so easily :p

You know, that might be a very astute observation. I realise that you probably didn't mean it in any way other than sarcasm but I don't think I've ever read a proper critique of the buildings themselves in terms of their overall condition prior to the event.

Based on my reading of the letter, I'm not terribly impressed. In the first sentence, Pepper misrepresents A&E911Truth as a membership organization, which it most certainly is not. Farther along, He keeps referring to qualified engineers who have studied the design and done structural analysis, however, they are not named in his letter. It would go a long way to establishing credibility if the engineers doing the analysis could be checked out.

It's not at all clear that the analysis detailed in the letter is well reasoned. Maybe I'll look into it later. I'm kind of bored with 9/11, to tell you the truth.

neformore

BrianG
They must have been three of the shoddiest ever to be built structures to fail so easily :p

You know, that might be a very astute observation. I realise that you probably didn't mean it in any way other than sarcasm but I don't think I've ever read a proper critique of the buildings themselves in terms of their overall condition prior to the event.

Partly sarcastic yes

I do know the mob was partly behind its construction

Ever watch the Simpsons ? Whenever Fat Tony builds something it fails miserably due to shoddy materials for cost saving measures

I watched it live on tv and I couldn't believe both towers fell and so closely together

I really expected one to partly fall over at the most

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


funny how you mention, "credibility of the engineers"...I'm just having trouble seeing how fire alone can remove 105 vertical feet of structural resistance consisting of 8 floors of truss assemblies W/carrier beams, lateral, cross and diagonal bracing, tens of thousands of bolts and welds, interior partitions, utilities, office products, globally in WTC7, *BEFORE* 1.74 seconds. [when kink forms], so acceleration EQUAL to Gravity can ensue, globally and unified immediately following at 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds......

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

what does SCIENCE say about the 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". significance of FREEFALL is there is NO gravitational energy available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to motion!

meaning, any bending, crushing, breaking connections, removal of structural resistance below the mass accelerating, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

now where else on earth do we see those same numbers????
ANY/every science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is 9.8m/s^2.

hmm.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"


also seems funny the 2005 NIST scientific investigation did not find any reason why these three buildings failed on 9-11...

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possible to make any statements about it's quality"


"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm


yet 2008 NIST is allowed to *IGNORE* their own scientific investigation, and claim fire did not only caused collapse, but did so as *NO OTHER* buildings have done before, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing.
NIST Technical Briefing

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section of the video stating, ....."brand new event"..."new phenomenon"..."there has *NEVER* been a collapse like WTC7".

and the only supporting evidence of the claims they push consist of computer models which they refuse to release the data that tells* the models what to do...WHY?
IMO, for one, that will show them the fraud they are, and two, because they have a Presidential Executive Order stating they don't have to prove what ever they claim.


NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file. These records are currently exempt from disclosure under section (b)(3) of the FOlA., 5 .S.C § 552 (b)(3). Exemption (b)(3) permits an agency to withhold records in an agency's possession which are records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute


'1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break element s, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


2. All input files with connection material properties and all results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."

For crying out loud can this one die already? There was no conspiracy by the government to pull this off. Yeesh...

hgfbob
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

 

funny how you mention, "credibility of the engineers"...I'm just having trouble seeing how fire alone can remove 105 vertical feet of structural resistance consisting of 8 floors of truss assemblies W/carrier beams, lateral, cross and diagonal bracing, tens of thousands of bolts and welds, interior partitions, utilities, office products, globally in WTC7, *BEFORE* 1.74 seconds. [when kink forms], so acceleration EQUAL to Gravity can ensue, globally and unified immediately following at 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds......

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

what does SCIENCE say about the 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". significance of FREEFALL is there is NO gravitational energy available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to motion!

meaning, any bending, crushing, breaking connections, removal of structural resistance below the mass accelerating, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

now where else on earth do we see those same numbers????
ANY/every science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is 9.8m/s^2.

hmm.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"


also seems funny the 2005 NIST scientific investigation did not find any reason why these three buildings failed on 9-11...

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possible to make any statements about it's quality"


"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm


yet 2008 NIST is allowed to *IGNORE* their own scientific investigation, and claim fire did not only caused collapse, but did so as *NO OTHER* buildings have done before, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing.
NIST Technical Briefing

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section of the video stating, ....."brand new event"..."new phenomenon"..."there has *NEVER* been a collapse like WTC7".

and the only supporting evidence of the claims they push consist of computer models which they refuse to release the data that tells* the models what to do...WHY?
IMO, for one, that will show them the fraud they are, and two, because they have a Presidential Executive Order stating they don't have to prove what ever they claim.


NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file. These records are currently exempt from disclosure under section (b)(3) of the FOlA., 5 .S.C § 552 (b)(3). Exemption (b)(3) permits an agency to withhold records in an agency's possession which are records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute


'1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break element s, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


2. All input files with connection material properties and all results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."

edit on 9-1-2014 by hgfbob because: (no reason given)

Man, there are soooooooo many expert engineers on here, lol.

DrEugeneFixer
In the first sentence, Pepper misrepresents A&E911Truth as a membership organization, which it most certainly is not.

Nowhere does it say that AE911T is a membership organization. All that is stated is "members of AE911T". It was used in a general sense. Dr. Pepper could've used "individuals of AE911T" instead. Either way, it was a general term.

DrEugeneFixer
I'm kind of bored with 9/11, to tell you the truth.

Nobody forces anyone to come into the 9/11 forum, read 9/11 threads, and post 9/11 comments. If someone is bored of something, they should move on and find other avenues of entertainment.

I believe this perfectly demonstrates the NIST complicity in the continuing coverup of what really happened on 9/11/01. The NIST absolutely refuses to release the input/results data of their computer models and now we learn the inputs fail to account for all structural members present in Building 7. Well done BoneZ!!! S&F

You should have added that post by WCIP, it was a good look into this same thing basically...

If I can find it I will post it here..

::EDIT::

Photographic Analysis of the WTC7 Hole - NIST Debunked

I've read this now.

I can see no reason why this omitted information would have affected the structural theory around why the building collapsed.

The stiffeners would add nothing to the strength of heated steel, as they were composed of the same material. They are present to prevent the centre of the beam from buckling under load in normal conditions, and would have added nothing to the beam strength in the unchecked fire conditions that apparently occurred in the building.

The lateral supports also would have been steel and - oddly - looking at it they may have pushed the beam minutely in one direction had their ends nearest the fires been heated, as they would have expanded to the point of least resistance, which would have been the failing, heated beam instead of the cooler outside of the building (that is conjecture on my part, but I feel it is valid)

So yes. The omission may be valid but in terms of the report it is wrong and they should have been included as omitting them paints a slightly distorted picture, but it does not detract from the theorised reason for failure.

Ultimately, while dramatic, this really doesn't change anything.

The theory as to the start point of the structural failure remains the same, but it is still a theory.

Those who wish to believe that the building was bought down by other means will still assume their theory is correct and that this somehow adds to it. It doesn't, but I suspect that really won't matter to their speculation.

reply to post by neformore

I can see no reason why this omitted information would have affected the structural theory around why the building collapsed.

Well, you and everyone else who wants to know what really happened WILL NEVER SEE the reasons...this, in and of itself, is the point; however, making this follow up claim:

The stiffeners would add nothing to the strength of heated steel, as they were composed of the same material. They are present to prevent the centre of the beam from buckling under load in normal conditions, and would have added nothing to the beam strength in the unchecked fire conditions that apparently occurred in the building.

without supporting documentation demonstrating the actual purpose of the stiffeners and what their performance was/is/could be/should be under all conditions is a very weak statement...

reply to post by hgfbob


You seem very knowledgeable, having obviously combed the NIST report on WTC 7.

I have a question, which has been on my mind..

So Building 7 was hit with some debris from the "collapse" of the north tower, if i'm not mistaken. There's a couple of photos showing the corner of Bldg 7 gouged out a bit..

That said - how precisely, did the raging inferno(s) as reported by NIST, actually take place? What was the alleged causal mechanism of those fires to begin with, and how were the fires distributed throughout the building, and why and how did they spread, according to NIST?

And what about the account of Barry Jennings (R.I.P.),
who claimed to have heard and witnessed the aftermath of explosions prior to, and after the destruction of first the South and then the North Tower (he might have gotten them backwards at one point in his testimony)..
- did the NIST, or any official agency or spokesperson ever address that, or has anyone asked them about it, and if so, what was the response? Barry of course isn't with us anymore to talk about it, not that i'm suggesting, necessarily, that there was foul play in his untimely death not long after coming out on the record, in this interview by "9/11 truthers" (i prefer to call them independant investigative researchers) about his experiences from that day. What a nice man, eh?


Thanks.

NAM


Edit to add:

Um, this is creepy - i just did a Google search on Barry Jennings, with the text string "9/11 how did Barry Jennings die?" because although i'd heard a rumor or two about this, i never really took it seriously or really paid it any attention.

The answer, as far as I can tell is that it's an unknown - which in and of itself requires further research ie: is there a death cert., etc..

Here's the gist of what i found.. very creepy, to say the least.

---------

Jennings testimony was recorded by Loose Change for the Final Cut version of the extremely popular documentary, but was edited out at the final stage due to Jennings misgivings about losing his job, and endangering his family.
The BBC later interviewed Jennings for a “911 debunking special” and Jennings seemed to retract the testimony given to Loose Change. Subsequently the creators of the film released the original interview to protect their own credibility.
Barry Jennings passed away shortly thereafter and coincidentally just a few days before the long awaited NIST report on Building 7 was released to the public. It is quite possible that Jennings would have exposed the cover story of NIST, and their overall excuse that the 47 story building was the first and only skyscraper felled by fire. He never got that chance.

NEW INFO
Yesterday, April 15th 2009 I was contacted by “Loose Change” director, and narrator Dylan Avery (Barry Jennings interviewer) who said that he had recently begun investigating the death of Barry Jennings, and had found some new information relating to his death.
It seems that there is a very good possibility that Jennings’ death could have been due to foul play. Though the investigations are on going, initial findings are somewhat alarming. The conclusion is still forthcoming, but I was shocked by what I heard.

It seems that Dylan had hired a private investigator to look into Jennings death which remains shrouded in mystery.

His motive was simply to bring some closure to the life of Barry Jennings, and in doing so to honor the memory of this brave American.

The Investigator ended up referring the case to Law enforcement before refunding his pay, and told Dylan never to contact him again. Very unusual to say the least. Dylan also paid a visit to the Jennings home. He found it vacant and for sale.
Personally, something is really beginning to stink here. Why would a highly paid PI refuse to continue his investigation? Why did he refer the matter to police? He is not talking. What is he afraid of? Was he warned to cease and desist? If so by whom?
These are some of the new questions revolving around the Jennings case.
deadlinelive.info...


Barry Jennings Revisited

www.ae911truth.org...

BARRY JENNINGS MYSTERY

jenningsmystery.com...

I'm not a huge fan of Alex Jones, but for those interested in this Barry Jennings mystery, the following is worthy of inclusion, imo.

Alex Jones Tv:"Mysterious Death of Barry Jennings"

www.youtube.com...

_BoneZ_

DrEugeneFixer
In the first sentence, Pepper misrepresents A&E911Truth as a membership organization, which it most certainly is not.

Nowhere does it say that AE911T is a membership organization.

www.journalof911studies.com...

I write to you at the request, and on behalf of the professional organization of
more than 2,100 professionally, degreed architects and engineers...

...The members are not political activists...

...members of Architects and Engineers for
9/11 Truth...

That clearly portrays Architects and Engineers for 911 truth as a membership organization.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


I have a really hard time understanding precisely where you're coming from or what your concern or rebuttal really is..

Can you be more specific or clarify it a little bit more perhaps.. is it one of ridicule towards A&E4911T? ..towards the "truth movement" in general..?

at a bit of a loss here to understand or to begin to fathom it.. in light of everything that's been discussed and explored.

I never knew about the EO which allows Nist not to explain anything.They can omit and distort anything that contradicts their findings I have found the fact that they won't release their work disturbing you would think if they figured out how it all transpired they would have no problem with showing their conclusions.

totallackey
reply to post by neformore

 

without supporting documentation demonstrating the actual purpose of the stiffeners and what their performance was/is/could be/should be under all conditions is a very weak statement...

edit on 9-1-2014 by totallackey because: clarity

Stiffeners are introduced onto the vertical section of "I" beams to prevent the centre web from buckling under load, as the slenderness of the section can cause it to distort.

Some good examples here.
www.steelconstruction.info...

The stiffeners are - essentially - steel plates that are usually welded (but sometimes bolted) into place on the beams, and - in this case would be subject to the same heat expansion as the rest of the beam. If the beam expands along its length due to heat, the stiffeners will be expanding too.

Hope that makes sense.

NewAgeMan
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
I have a really hard time understanding precisely where you're coming from or what your concern or rebuttal really is..

The bit about AE11truth is a longstanding pet peeve of mine. There's a lot of misrepresentation of AE911Truth in the conspiracy world. A professional membership organization, like the American institute of Architects, for example has a membership divided into local chapters who attend regular meetings and provide members with educational and volunteer opportunities. The leadership is elected by the members, and so can be assumed to represent their opinions and interests fairly well (within reason).

AE911Truth is wholly controlled by Richard Gage. There are no "members", just people who signed a petition over the last five or so years.

When people represent AE911Truth as a membership org, their trying to pull the wool over your eyes, or they've already had the wool pulled over theirs. This leads me to think poorly of the letter's author.

Taken in combination with the fact that the engineers who supposedly debunked NIST are for some reason unnamed in the letter, the overall picture doesn't add up to much.

I'm not going to include my views on this, done it loads of times and as I'm NOT an engineer I won't try and pretend to be BUT as NIST ARE engineers and by rights the official reporters on this fiasco it seems somewhat CRIMINAL that a team of reported engineers quite knowingly removed certain parts of the fortification of the building (via diagrams) in an attempt to make their theory work.

At the very least its unprofessional but if deliberate its criminal and conspiracy to deceive...

IF its proved that these removed items would have considerably changed the report to such a case that it would prove it impossible for the buildings to be destroyed as described by NIST then somebody should be facing the judges..

Sadly IF the government has the hand that we who don't believe the official story think they have then they will move hell and high water to NEVER allow this out. I think its obvious this will go no further no matter what the people think. Considering the thoughts of many Americans about the lack lustre way the first investigation was done I suspect many want the correct funding for a be and end all final report with open data that is no longer classed as TOP SECRET for whatever reasons with NIST having to present a fully open set of data.

I believe this would finally stop all the squabbling about 9/11, but will it be allowed to happen, I very much doubt it even though the cost of the enquiry would be a smidgeon compared to the money embezzled daily in Congress.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

AE911Truth is wholly controlled by Richard Gage. There are no "members", just people who signed a petition over the last five or so years.

There have been numerous disingenuous statements within the 9/11 forum posted over the years and this is just another to add to this list.

About Us

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a non-profit non-partisan organization of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing facts about the complete destruction of all three World Trade Center high-rises on September 11, 2001.
Our organization is devoted to:
■ Dispelling misinformation and disinformation with scientific facts and forensic evidence
■ Educating and motivating thousands of architects and engineers as well as the public at large
■ Obtaining a truly independent WTC investigation with subpoena power
■ Achieving mainstream media coverage for our cause

In other words, your post, "... leads me to think poorly of the post's author." See how that works both ways?

DrEugeneFixer
AE911Truth is wholly controlled by Richard Gage. There are no "members", just people who signed a petition over the last five or so years.

Without saying anything else, I'll just point you to AE911T's Board of Directors page listing the five-member board, which consists of the CEO (Gage), a Treasurer, Secretary, and two Board members:

www.ae911truth.org...