I have decided to create this thread as a place to discuss the statements made by NIST in their letter of response to a request by some of the
families of the 911 victims to release more information and to incorporate or make modifications to their analysis.
You may read NIST's letter here: www.911proof.com...
I would first like to list the problematic and concerning statements made by NIST in this letter:
First and most concerning, the report stated that the less severe damage models for the WTC impact/fire
did not meet two key observables: (1) no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped
prior to reaching this side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event (see Section 7.10), and (2) the
fire-structural and collapse initiation analyses of the damaged towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-6) indicated that the towers would not have collapsed had the
less severe damage results been used.
The request of the families was basically that you can't not publish model results simply because the impact/fire damage alone didn't result in
collapse....so please publish the less severe damage models. NIST's response to this was that the above quote from the report...
...should have read, "The less severe damage case did not meet a key observable: no aircraft debris was calculated to exit the side opposite to
impact and most of the debris was stopped prior to reaching that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact
event (see Section 7.10). NIST has issued an erratum to correct this error...
So they removed their reasoning because their reasoning was challenged. This critical statement of the model selection process will be removed from
Let's review what is left. NIST states that the other reason the less severe damage model was not published is because the debris did not exit the
opposite side of the building and therefore did not create visible external damage in agreement with photographic and video evidence of the day, but
in the first paragraph of response A they state:
In the less severe damage case, while the damage to the exterior wall impacted by aircraft was in reasonable agreement with observable data,
namely photographic evidence, agreement with other key observables was not achieved, in particular the shifting of building contents due to the
Of course, immediately one sees an issue with this statement because no one knows of photographic or video evidence of the shifting of contents in the
buildings. One is left to assume that NIST has no idea what that shifting was and therefore this is not a valid reason for rejection of the model, OR
NIST has photographic and video evidence that has not been revealed to the public. Of course, one can also assume that if NIST is being honest in
this statement then the greater damage model MET this content shift of which they have knowledge and since numerous eye witness accounts and first
responder transmissions and depositions result in evidence of 20 foot marble slabs blown off the lobby level walls of WTC 1 and collapses in the
sublevel of the building, we are left to assume these events did, in fact, occur in the more severe damage model. Right?
But they go on to say:
While none of the damage scenarios resulted in landing gear debris exiting the opposite face of the WTC 1 model, NIST documents in NCSTAR 1-2,
chapter 7, the uncertainties in the configuration of the building interor on the floors of impact that could influence the modeling results and
also documents the aspects of the model construction that also influence the model results.
These statements are problematic to NIST in regards to the reason given for rejecting the request to publish the lesser damage model. First, if none
of the models matched the video and photographic evidence they are reporting to be the benchmark for validation, then the reason given for rejecting
the lesser damage model, that of not meeting this same evidence, can't discretely be applied to rejecting that model relative to the other models.
In addition, if NIST is going to confess they don't even know the configuration of the building interior, how can they claim to have sufficient
knowledge of the shifting of contents in the building to the point they can use it as a criteria for rejecting the lesser damage model?
In response E of this letter NIST responds to the families' request that the models be re-ran at the maximum temperature of 250 C (around 650 F) due
to the fact NIST states in their report they found no evidence that any of the recovered core columns experienced temperatures in excess of 250 C.
They reject the request to re-run the model at this lower temperature based on the disingenuous argument that just because they didn't find core
columns that had experienced higher temperatures doesn't mean there weren't core columns that exceeded 250 C; that and the small number of specimens
they tested was too small to be representative of the core column population.
Well, this point has been a point I have hammered on for 2 years now.
1. NIST if you didn't do enough specimen gathering and specimen testing then you robbed the US taxpayer...because you didn't do your job. Give us
back our money and turn your engineering licenses in.
2. NIST if you state you did not find evidence of core columns being exposed to temperatures in excess of 250 C
then you should not model with
higher temperatures you have no test data to support. And you CAN'T reject the request to model at the temperature limit your data DOES support!
The last section of this letter has to do with the families' claim that NIST violated the Data Quality Act and the OMB/NIST Information Quality
Standards because the NIST did not look at additional factors other than the plane impact and fire to fully investigate the possible scenarios leading
I could regurgitate their bureaucratic backside-covering response, but it really doesn't matter at this point because they already admitted in the
report they rejected any damage models in which the impact and the fire didn't result in the collapse of the building - but hurry and go read it in
the report because as noted above, they are going to remove that statement now.
This thread will be dedicated to the discussion of the importance of the contents of this letter and the implications it could have going forward. In
addition, if anyone has further points they would like to make about certain statements in the letter not covered in this post - feel free.
This thread will not be allowed to be derailed to another topic and I will make sure Springer stays involved to prevent that. You have been duly
[edit on 11-2-2007 by Valhall]