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

As everyone may or may not
know, the National Institute
of Standards and Technology
(NIST) is a United States
Department of Commerce
Agency.

On December 12, 2013, a well-
known attorney by the name
of Dr. William F. Pepper
(Wiki --- Website)
sent a letter by courier on
behalf of Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth to
Mr. Todd J. Zinser, Inspector
General of the Department of
Commerce.

In the letter, Dr. Pepper asserts that due to a FOIA request to NIST by AE911T that includes the drawings and prints of WTC 7 from Frankel Steel Ltd. that NIST used in determining their analysis and report on WTC 7, NIST omitted certain critical structural features from their report.

From the letter:

It was only some years after the issuance of the NIST Report that drawings were released, in response to a FOIA request, revealing that critical structural features in Building 7 were inexplicably missing from consideration in the Report.

These critical features included stiffeners, that provided critical girder support, as well as lateral support beams which supported a beam which allegedly buckled. Only through the omission of any discussion about the stiffeners and the lateral support beams is NIST’s probable collapse sequence possible. With the inclusion of these critical features, NIST’s probable collapse sequence must be ruled out unambiguously. It is the unanimous opinion of the structural engineers who have carefully studied this matter that an independent engineering enquiry would swiftly reach the same conclusion.

The letter goes on to state which critical features are missing from the NIST report:

As mentioned earlier, review of the released WTC 7 drawings also showed there were two serious structural feature omissions from the NIST analyses. They were:

1. Stiffeners were omitted from the column 79 end of girder A2001.

2. Lateral support beams S3007, G3007, and K3007 from the north exterior frame to beam G3005 were omitted.

Below are images of the structural features that NIST omitted from their report on WTC 7:






Two years ago, NIST was asked why the above structural features were omitted from their report. Finally, on October 25, 2013, a NIST public relations official did admit that the stiffeners were omitted because the stiffeners were there to prevent web-crippling. According to NIST, their analyses showed no web-crippling failures, so the stiffeners did not need to be included in the analyses or drawings.

They never did acknowledge the omission of the lateral support beams.

"Potential negligence and/or misconduct by the lead investigators of NIST's WTC 7 investigation."

The letter to the Inspector General further states that had the structural features been included in the analyses, that failure at column 79 would have been impossible due to the extra structural support.

The letter then alleges that due to these omissions by NIST, the Inspector General should open an investigation into the potential negligence and/or misconduct by the lead investigators of NIST's WTC 7 investigation. And that ultimately, NIST should be required to re-do their analysis and report on WTC 7 taking into account the omitted structural features.

The letter then says:

Structural analyses are generally not permitted to leave out structural features which would degrade the strength of the structure without admitting to having done so. These omissions were not divulged in the NIST WTC 7 report released in November 2008, and were only discerned three years later when the drawings became publicly available.

The letter to the Inspector General includes almost a dozen pages of technical drawings and prints with explanations of each, but ultimately concludes that after the omitted stiffeners and lateral support beams were added into a new analysis, there was no buckling of beam G3005 due to the lateral supports requiring approximately 16-times more axial compression to cause buckling.



This is a very serious and damning allegation towards NIST, and very serious omissions by NIST. I don't believe NIST should be allowed to go unchecked on these allegations.

They should be required to produce a very-thorough explanation as to why these critical structural features were omitted from their drawings and reports, and they should be required to produce a new analysis and report with the omitted structural features added.

This will definitely be something to keep an eye on.



For those wanting to view the actual drawings and prints of WTC 7 by Frankel Steel Ltd. themselves, they can download them from AE911T's website here:

www.ae911truth.org...


To read the entire letter and included drawings/explanations sent to the Inspector General, it can be read (or right-click and download) in PDF format from the Journal of 9/11 Studies here:

www.journalof911studies.com...

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Thank you for posting.

Dr Pepper is certainly on to something interesting there.


Arden Bement was nominated as director for NIST by Bush on October of 2001:

The U.S. Senate today confirmed Arden L. Bement Jr. as director of the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The position of NIST director is a presidential appointment. Bement, 69, was nominated by President Bush on Oct. 23, 2001, to be the 12th director of the agency. He succeeds Raymond Kammer, who retired in December 2000. NIST Deputy Director Karen Brown has served as acting director in the interim.

"The addition of Arden Bement completes a stellar 'tech team' for the Bush Administration," said Secretary Don Evans. "He brings a wealth of experience in both the private and public sector vital to this position. With Dr. Bement leading our nation's premier federal lab, we look forward to making the Technology Administration the portal for the technology community to the federal government."

www.nist.gov...

And of course NIST is heavy in hand with all the massive corps who eventually got contracts after (during) the war to rebuild everything that was blowed up.

I am not insinuating evidence of anything here, or saying someone, some organization is guilty, merely showing the connections between the administration and the agency which may have omitted something in bad faith.

And of course, the more things come to light, eventually implications can be made or dismissed.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Out of all the craziness of the day, the one thing that struck me the most was seeing the fires in WTC7 on TV and thinking, why so much fire when the building hadn't even been hit by planes? I'm fully aware that wreckage and debris from the impact hit the building, but to cause fires like that doesn't make senseto me. WTC7 is a very interesting scenario indeed and perhaps the key to discovering some truths about 9/11, whatever they may be.

On the OP, I'm not sure how this information ties in with the current theories, what exactly are the implications?

reply to post by Zcustosmorum


As you can see from the images, NIST omitted several structural elements from their analyses and drawings. Omitting those structural elements out of their analyses makes the structure weaker than what it really was.

With the structural elements added in, new analyses would show that the structure would not have buckled and collapsed like NIST claimed, adding more fuel to the claims that office fires could not have caused WTC 7 to completely collapse, let alone at or near free-fall.

Wasn't there talk also of missing shear studs in the NIST calculations, which tied the floor slabs to the beams?

_BoneZ_
reply to post by Zcustosmorum

 

As you can see from the images, NIST omitted several structural elements from their analyses and drawings. Omitting those structural elements out of their analyses makes the structure weaker than what it really was.

With the structural elements added in, new analyses would show that the structure would not have buckled and collapsed like NIST claimed, adding more fuel to the claims that office fires could not have caused WTC 7 to completely collapse, let alone at or near free-fall.

NIST haven't taken these people seriously from day 1, so why should they now? And if they're made to answer (by who knows who), then they could just as easy turn around and say, it was a clerical error.

Zcustosmorum
then they could just as easy turn around and say, it was a clerical error.

Not necessarily. If you read the letter, NIST already admitted to half of the omissions because they didn't deem it necessary. They shouldn't get to decide what structural members are necessary for an analysis and what aren't.

All structural features should be included in any and all analyses.

_BoneZ_

Zcustosmorum
then they could just as easy turn around and say, it was a clerical error.

Not necessarily. If you read the letter, NIST already admitted to half of the omissions because they didn't deem it necessary. They shouldn't get to decide what structural members are necessary for an analysis and what aren't.

All structural features should be included in any and all analyses.

Then we return to the point of NIST not taking these people seriously and not having to answer to anyone.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum


NIST has to answer to the Inspector General, and he is who received the letter, confirmed by courier.

_BoneZ_
reply to post by Zcustosmorum

 

NIST has to answer to the Inspector General, and he is who received the letter, confirmed by courier.

Given that the report also omitted witness statements of molten steel falling and other details, I still remain skeptical that they'll have to answer, but if they do then good news and hopefullly some truthful answers.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I really wish that NIST could be forced to answer why and precisely how, the twin towers managed to be destroyed the way they were to within 4-6 seconds of absolute free fall for any freely dropped object from the same height in nothing but air, or in other words, just wtf actually happened beyond the hypothetical point of collapse initiation, if such a thing were even possible to begin with (which could also be refuted).

Someone in another thread claimed that NIST did in fact provide a model of the twin towers' actual destruction, post "collapse" initiation. Is this true, and if so, where can we find it?

Given the extreme height of the towers and the time of their near free fall destruction, which lends itself very well to a comprehensive rebuttal to the O.S., why can't A&E4911T, given their now rather impressive membership listing of 2000+, which is the size of a fairly significant, multidisciplinary architectural and engineering consulting firm, in and of itself, along with some physicists who understand the laws of motion and conservation of momentum - not generate a comprehensive rebuttal to the NIST Report, as it relates specifically to the North and South Tower, of the WTC, where the crux of the global psy-op that is 9/11 took place?

Such a comprehensive rebuttal could then be published in a high profile building engineering and or engineering science publication, who, now that 12 years have passed, might be actually willing to give it an honest peer review, and then actually publish it. It would then force a rebuttal, in turn, according to the laws of physics and structural engineering, which is something that I'd like to see someone be forced to TRY to make... can you imagine how the heck they could possibly manage THAT?! They'd need a new type of physics..

I get why WTC 7 is important, but not to the exclusion of looking at the way that the north and south tower "collapsed".

Why does the 9/11 truth movement seem to be absolutely obsessed with Building 7, but seems unconcerned with the physical problems (according to the OS) with the destruction of the twin towers themselves?

If I had the money, i'd have no problem dropping a million dollars or more, for a comprehensive rebuttal to the NIST report, as it relates exclusively to the twin towers.

I just don't get it, why such a comprehensive rebuttal to the NIST report, regarding the twin towers' total destruction in 14-16 seconds, each, has not been undertaken by this organization, and it's my understanding that they have the money now or could easily raise it.

Just a thought... pass it on _BoneZ_ if you could, thanks.

NAM

Edit to add:

Is it maybe because of the apparent causal link or connection to the plane impacts?

If so, then i would suggest a collaborative effort with Pilots for 9/11 Truth, whereby their data and analysis, showcased here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

could form a supplemental report, revealing that the apparent causal connection to the plane impacts is entirely fraudulent and a blatant HOAX of Hitlerian and Orwellian proportions, and then some.

I guess I'll email Gage myself (forgive me if I don't entirely trust the ATS mods/staff around here, although that said, i do really like your work here _BoneZ_).

reply to post by _BoneZ_


A long time ago I was banned from several websites after posting equations based only on conservation of momentum, the buildings weights, and NO structural strength left besides equal to gravity (barely hanging on). The buildings still cannot fall that fast running into other mass on the way down. I also did the math assuming that up to 17 floors were completely wiped out and used the above floors at free fall. I didn't do the math for building 7, but that one was the worst at competing with reality..

I read a popular mechanics or American scientist? article that tried to make the energy of the collapse way higher than it was. They tried to make an equation of the potential energy of the building as the entire height times the entire mass... I don't know if that rings any bells, but the entire mass of the building is not at the very top crunched into a little ball. They were blatantly misrepresenting reality. They compared the energy to a nuclear bomb in the article after completely lying about potential energy due to gravity.

Back in the day on another forum I pointed these things out, only to be blocked on an IP and mac address basis.

I'm no engineer (yet), but the basic physics just don't seem to work.

reply to post by Dustytoad


Welcome to ATS (although i see that you've been around for a bit).

We would be more than happy, most of us, to see your work.

If it's valid, post it. Create a thread, but don't NOT share what you've discovered, there's no need to be timid around here. No one will ban you for sharing your views, hopefully not anyway provided you remain within the ToS (or whatever it's called).

Not everyone is closed minded when it comes to valid hypothesis, evidence, proof.

If you have it, please do share it at some point if you like, sounds interesting.

Best Regards,

NAM

NewAgeMan
reply to post by Dustytoad

 

Welcome to ATS (although i see that you've been around for a bit).

We would be more than happy, most of us, to see your work.

I don't have my work. Unless it's on the internet somewhere it is lost. I know a couple websites to look at to maybe find it.
My "work" was very basic in nature to show conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.
I couldn't make those equations work even at the highest estimates of mass for each floor.

There have been many others who made better equations based more on the structure rather than the mass.

Here are some basics:

F=ma Force equals mass X acceleration. Acceleration = gravity in this case.

Now when a mass hits another mass there is a deceleration. The momentum lost by the falling floors is gained by the floors beneath being hit (pancake theory)... So If I am 10 grams and I run at 2 miles an hour at someone running 1 mile an hour who is 20 grams we will be stuck. m1v1 = m2v2

The building collapse is a bit harder to write out, but it's basically m1 X v1 = m2 X v2... In this case m1 is the falling top floors above the plane hit. This is mass 1. mass 1 has a certain velocity (v1) when it falls through the plane hit into the rest of the building. Each floor below is mass 2. As the building falls mass 1 becomes bigger adding each floor. The velocity 1 slows down with each addition of mass, and yet gravity accelerates it at the same time.

Basically the buildings fell too fast for any of the floors to have resistance even just due to mass and not structural strength.

Imagine dropping onto concrete from 100 feet up. When you hit do you pass right through at the same speed or do you slow way down?

It's not hard.. I have been depressed to one degree or another since 2005 because of this. That's when I found out other people thought 9/11 was fishy. That's also as late as I heard about building 7... How did I not know earlier? Heh 2 buildings fell that day right?

By the way others have made better equations and I don't want to open old wounds. I've been done with this topic. I don't want to get back into this. I'll look for my old posts, but not sure I want to do that all over again. I'm done being hated.

I may regret posting this.

Asking the NIST what happend is like asking a robber who robbed the bank.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I think i get it. If the structural members that were omitted in their report, were included, then the "collapse" at least as it was described by them, in that same report, won't work the way they say it did. So in other words, they shot themselves in the foot.

It seemed kind of trivial when i first read the OP, but one can see that it's not at all.

Poor NIST - what will they do, years from now, as people looking back on the events learn how to create physical models according to the laws of physics and structural engineering..?

What will they do when i become a multi-millionaire and fund a strong rebuttal by A&E49/11 to the NIST Reports, BOTH for Building 7 as well as, the twin towers.

I'd say that the O.S. is just screwed in regards to its long term "historicity". There could and are likely to be other historical "tipping points" that Philip Zelikow could never have imagined in his wildest dreams..

You cannot fool all the people all the time, forever. It's just not possible.

Best Regards,

NAM

A long time ago I was banned from several websites after posting equations based only on conservation of momentum

What websites are you talking about? I have told you before that this is not a truther site in which every single thing you can dream up is believed.

"Might regret posting this" We have already been through this over and over and no one is out to get you for posting on ATS-or anywhere for that matter. It is a paranoid neurotic disorder in which persons think the whole world is after then.

One of the problems of continually posting the same thing over and over shows you just don't have any experience in criminal investigation. What you are suggesting is criminal and you can be held libel for falsely accusing someone of a crime-now that is something you really need to worry about.

Now for your criminal investigation to continue you need to list motive-means and opportunely.

I don't want to hear about free fall or beams and struts or any other kind of buzz words or phrases.

Since you all lack skills in criminal investigation I'll explain it to you.

Motive-need to commit the crime Means- ability to commit the crime Opportunely-chance to commit the crime

The Dutch guy said it would need 30-40 people 'at the right time' to plan the explosives or whatever he said. Explain what the 'right time' is. By the way what kind of Dutch is that guy speaking-I can't make out anything-sounds like German and English mashed together. It must be a Belgium dialect or Flemish.

Those subtitles don't match what he is saying-is this a joke or something?

Some light reading there.... gonna take me a while to plough through it.

Initial thoughts are based on this from Wiki...

NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[

en.wikipedia.org...

...would be that the expansion of a steel beam through heating would be greatest along its length, and that any supporting steelwork would also be weakened - indeed the heat transfer through those elements may have added to problem. The stiffeners would have no effect on the lengthwise expansion and the beam still could have come unseated.

I agree though, that the elements shouldn't have been omitted from the report. It looks bad. I need to read more on it.

Zcustosmorum
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Out of all the craziness of the day, the one thing that struck me the most was seeing the fires in WTC7 on TV and thinking, why so much fire when the building hadn't even been hit by planes? I'm fully aware that wreckage and debris from the impact hit the building, but to cause fires like that doesn't make senseto me. WTC7 is a very interesting scenario indeed and perhaps the key to discovering some truths about 9/11, whatever they may be.

On the OP, I'm not sure how this information ties in with the current theories, what exactly are the implications?

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