9-11 Truth Movement: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering
Journal
With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the
discussion on 9-11 has
reached a new level.
by Prof Jones
Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed
technical journals
over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed
peer-review and have been
accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we
say that we have
“published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of
scientific inquiry.
And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to science
in allowing us to
follow the evidence and publish in their journal. (Indeed, expressions of
thanks along these
lines to the editors will be appreciated, as they will probably get a few
letters chastising
them… )
The paper is here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm
(our paper is listed on top at the
moment, the most
recently entered paper); or go here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)
(HTML version below. -rep.)
Yes, it is available on-line FOR FREE, since this is an “open e-journal.”
TOCEJ = The Open
Civil Engineering Journal. You may download the paper and make copies to
give to local
professors and engineers (hint, hint). That's one reason this particular
journal was chosen --
open access, free to download and make copies. What do Profs/Engineers say
about it -- let us
know would you?
In this Letter, we emphasize “points of agreement” with FEMA and NIST,
seeking to build bridges
for further communications. Of course, we will send a copy to NIST for
their comment and
hopefully open a public discussion on these crucial evidences and
analyses. Note the title –
but then read more—the paper only six pages long:
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Re****ts on the World
Trade Center Destruction
The authors are: Steven E. Jones*,1, Frank M. Legge2, Kevin R. Ryan3,
Anthony F. Szamboti*,4,
James R. Gourley
Approaching this as “Points of Agreement” is NEW, I believe (obviously
some “older” quotes are
cited in this new context) and we hope this will be a fruitful approach!
Mechanical engineer
Tony Szamboti and I are the “corresponding authors,” the ones people are
invited to write to
with comments.
With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the
discussion has reached a new
level – JREF’ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get
published in a
peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a
peer-reviewed paper.
It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise in
the Letter, by
attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather than addressing the
science – that would not
surprise me.
Professor Chomsky wrote to several, who passed it on to me:
“You, or anyone who agrees with you, has a very simple task. Since
the evidence is so
obvious and compelling, submit an article about it to Science, or Nature,
or even Scientific
American, or more technical journals, say those in civil engineering,
where your article can
refute the conclusions of the professional society of civil engineers… To
date, no one has been
willing to submit an article -- at least, after probably hundreds of
inquiries to Truth
Movement advocates, no one has been able to mention one...”
Would someone who has received this note from Prof. Chomsky please send
him a copy of the
downloaded paper? Perhaps we can build a bridge with him. You might note
that the paper is
published in a “technical journal [one of those] in civil engineering,” to
use his own words,
which I took as sort of a challenge. I have published before in Nature
(e.g., May 1986 and
April 1989) AND Scientific American (July 1987), and this paper in a civil
engineering journal
I consider to be a very significant step in the history.
Further in the spirit of building bridges, I’d like to quote from Prof.
Fetzer who wrote today
– and I agree: “I would appreciate it… if those who are reaching out to
the public would show a
degree of appreciation for those who are trying to figure out how these
things were done…. I
believe we can succeed if we show more tolerance and less disrespect for
one another.” Agreed!
In this paper, the authors are both reaching out to the public (most can
read this Letter with
understanding, I think) AND seeking to progress in figuring out how the
buildings were destroyed…
Now let’s work together to unify the 9/11 truth movement and show some
mutual respect, shall
we? Suggest we seek a focus on getting NIST (or other technical people) to
work with us in
doing a thorough and proper investigation which will include release of
NIST-held photos AND
the NFPA-921-mandated search for “thermite residues”. [Hint- good time to
read the paper if you
disagree or don’t know really what I’m talking about here.]
Finally, I should note that the editor that we worked with was polite and
professional
throughout the process. We hope others, in their responses, will maintain
that decorum. In the
final analysis, all THREE reviewers approved publication!
Time to celebrate, and move forward together.
Note: another blog will discuss the journal chosen and the Letter format
(as opposed to a
typical “article format” with methods, results and discussion). Also, I
will take note of your
comments to this announcement of a formal publication in a peer-reviewed
civil engineering journal!
HTML version (please note any hyperlink errors in the comments area).
From: The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Re****ts on the World
Trade Center Destruction
Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and
James R. Gourley
Abstract: Re****ts by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account of
the destruction of the
World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a
foundation for productive
discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find
common ground with FEMA
and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about
the WTC collapses.
INTRODUCTION
On September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (WTC)
were hit by airplanes.
Total destruction of these high-rises at near free-fall speeds ensued
within two hours, and
another high-rise which was not hit by a plane (WTC 7) collapsed about
seven hours later at
5:20 p.m.
The US Congress laid out the charge specifically to the National Institute
of Standards and
Technology (NIST) to “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed
following the initial
impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed”.1 The Federal
Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) was acting with a similar motivation in their earlier study
of these tragic
collapses.2 NIST and FEMA were not charged with finding out how fire was
the specific agent of
collapse, yet both evidently took that limited approach while leaving open
a number of
unanswered questions. Our goal here is to set a foundation for scientific
discussion by
enumerating those areas where we find agreement with NIST and FEMA.
Understanding the
mechanisms that led to the destruction of the World Trade Center will
enable scientists and
engineers to provide a safer environment for people using similar
buildings and benefit
firefighters who risk their lives trying to save others.
DISCUSSION
1. WTC 7 Collapse Issue
FEMA: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the
building to collapse remain
unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises
contained massive
potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of
occurrence. Further
research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue”.2
FEMA analyzed the remarkable collapse of WTC building 7, the 47-story
skyscraper that, even
though it was not hit by a plane, collapsed about seven hours after the
second Tower collapse.
We certainly agree that FEMA’s best firebased hypothesis “has only a low
probability of
occurrence.” NIST’s final re****t on WTC 7 has been long delayed and is
eagerly awaited.3
Apparently it is difficult to fully explain the complete and rapid
collapse of WTC 7 with a
fire-based hypothesis alone.
2. Withstanding Jet Impact
FEMA: “The WTC towers had been designed to withstand the accidental impact
of a Boeing 707
seeking to land at a nearby air****t…” 2
NIST: “Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact,
standing for 102 min and 56
min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage
showed that both towers
had considerable reserve capacity”.4
Yes, we agree, as do previously published re****ts: “The 110-story towers
of the World Trade
Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a
horizontal impact of a
large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?”5
John Skilling, a leading structural engineer for the WTC Towers, was
interviewed in 1993 just
after a bomb in a truck went off in the North Tower:
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could
happen to the buildings,
even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling,
head structural engineer….
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State
Building [which did not
collapse], Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would
withstand the impact
of a Boeing 707.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that
all the fuel (from the
airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire.
A lot of people would
be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a
single 200-pound car
bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower.
The sup****ting columns
are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would
carry the load.
…Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are
people who do know
enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade
Center down.
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work
and gave him the
assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet
that he could do it."6
Thus, Skilling’s team showed that a commercial jet would not bring down a
WTC Tower, just as
the Empire State Building did not collapse when hit by an airplane, and he
explained that a
demolition expert using explosives could demolish the buildings. We find
we are in agreement.
3. Pancake Theory Not Sup****ted
NIST: “NIST’s findings do not sup****t the “pancake theory” of collapse,
which is premised on a
progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers… Thus, the
floors did not fail
progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon”.3
Agreed: the “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and should be
rejected. This theory of
collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA re****t and promoted in the
do***entary “Why the
Towers Fell” produced by NOVA.7 The “pancake theory of collapse” is
strongly promoted in a
Popular Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited
ideas.8, 9 We, on the other
hand, agree with NIST that the “pancake theory” is not scientifically
tenable and ought to be
set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC
Towers and WTC 7.
4. Massive Core Columns
NIST: “As stated above, the core columns were designed to sup****t
approximately 50% of the
gravity loads”.4 “The hat-truss tied the core to the perimeter walls of
the towers, and thus
allowed the building to withstand the effects of the aircraft impact and
subsequent fires for a
much longer time—enabling large numbers of building occupants to evacuate
safely”.10
“Pacific Car and Foundry of Seattle, Wa****ngton, fabricated the closely
spaced exterior wall
column panels that gave the buildings their instantly recognizable shape.
Stanray Pacific of
Los Angeles, Cal, fabricated the enormous box and wide-flange columns that
made up the core…
The core of the building, which carried primarily gravity loads, was made
up of a mixture of
massive box columns made from three-story long plates, and heavy rolled
wide-flange shapes.”
“The core columns were designed to carry the building gravity loads and
were loaded to
approximately 50% of their capacity before the aircraft impact.... the
exterior columns were
loaded to only approximately 20% of their capacity before the aircraft
impact”.11
We totally agree that the WTC Towers included “massive” interconnected
steel columns in the
cores of the buildings, in addition to the columns in the outside walls.
The central core
columns bore much of the gravity loads so the Towers were clearly NOT
hollow. Yet the false
notion that the Towers were “hollow tubes” with the floors sup****ted just
by the perimeter
columns seems to have gained wide acceptance. For example, an emeritus
structural engineering
professor asserted, “The structural design of the towers was unique in
that the sup****ting
steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all
four sides. The
resulting structure was similar to a tube…”.12
The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial load-sup****ting
core structure as
well as perimeter columns – and on this point we agree with NIST in
dispelling false popular
notions.
The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial load-sup****ting
core structure as
well as perimeter columns – and on this point we agree with NIST in
dispelling false popular
notions.
5. Essentially in Free Fall
NIST: [Question:] “How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds
(WTC 1) and 9 seconds
(WTC 2) — speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar
height in a vacuum (with
no air resistance)?” [Answer:] …As do***ented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST
NCSTAR 1, these
collapse times show that: “… the structure below the level of collapse
initiation offered
minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact
zone. The potential
energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far
exceeded the capacity
of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of
deformation. Since the
stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance
to the tremendous
energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above
came down essentially
in free fall, as seen in videos”.3
We agree with some of this, that the building “came down essentially in
free fall, as seen in
videos.” This is an im****tant starting point. (Because of obscuring dust
clouds, it is
difficult to determine the exact fall times, but the statement that the
buildings “came down
essentially in free fall” seems correct when accelerations are viewed, for
the WTC Towers and
also for WTC 7.)13, 14 Further, we agree with NIST that “the stories below
the level of
collapse initiation provided little resistance” to the fall – but we ask –
how could that be?
NIST mentions “energy of deformation” which for the huge core columns in
the Towers would be
considerable, and they need to be quantitative about it (which they were
not) in order to claim
that the “intact structure” below would not significantly slow the motion.
Beyond that, NIST evidently neglects a fundamental law of physics in
glibly treating the
remarkable “free fall” collapse of each Tower, namely, the Law of
Conservation of Momentum.
This law of physics means that the hundreds of thousands of tons of
material in the way must
slow the upper part of the building because of its mass, independent of
deformation which can
only slow the fall even more. (Energy and Momentum must both be
conserved.)
Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving the
near-free-fall speeds
unexplained) is a major flaw in their analysis.13, 14 NIST ignores the
possibility of
controlled demolitions, which achieve complete building collapses in near
free-fall times by
moving the material out of the way using explosives. So, there is an
alternative explanation
that fits the data without violating basic laws of physics. We should be
able to agree from
observing the near-free-fall destruction that this is characteristic of
controlled demolitions
and, therefore, that controlled demolition is one way to achieve complete
collapse at near
free-fall speed. Then we are keen to look at NIST’s calculations of how
they explain
near-free-fall collapse rates without explosives.
We await an explanation from NIST which satisfies Conservation of Momentum
and Energy for the
rapid and complete destruction of all three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11, or a
discussion of
alternative hypotheses that are consistent with momentum and energy
conservation in these
near-free-fall events.
6. Fire Endurance Tests, No Failure
NIST: “NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct
tests to obtain
information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC
towers…. All four test
specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours
without collapsing… The
Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the
formulation of
collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test
results, the fires in
the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor
systems, were substantially
different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the
[empirical test] results
established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large
gravity load, without
collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of
the fires in any given
location on September 11”.4
We agree that NIST had actual fire tests completed and that all four
“trusses like those in the
WTC towers” survived the fire-endurance testing “without collapsing.” We
also agree that “the
fires in the towers on September 11 … were substantially different from
the conditions in the
test furnaces;” the test furnaces were hotter and burned longer. NIST may
wish to perform a
series of different tests in an endeavor to discover some other hypothesis
for collapse
initiation. As it stands, however, we have no physical evidence sup****ting
the concept of total
collapse due to fire from real fire-endurance tests. On the contrary,
these real-life tests
indicate that the buildings should not have completely collapsed. In
addition, we have hundreds
of cases of fires in tall steel-frame buildings and complete collapse has
never occurred.
But experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern,
steel-reinforced high-rise, had
ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been
trying to figure out
exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other
buildings like it around
the country…. Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary
fires for at least
two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that
are treated with such
coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration. Most of three
other buildings in the
complex, 4, 5 and 6 World Trade, stood despite suffering damage of all
kinds, including fire.15
Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:
Almost all large buildings will be the location for
a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has
ever collapsed from
fire… The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975; however,
the building survived
with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.16
Yet three such high-rise buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7) completely collapsed
on a single day,
9/11/2001, and could not be returned to service. There is much left to
learn here.
7. Fires of Short Duration
NIST: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few
minutes”.4 “At any given
location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was
about 15 min to 20
min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or
below”.4
We agree. But then, given that the fires were brief and patchy, how did
both towers experience
sudden-onset failure of structural steel over a broad area in each tower
and how could the
collapses of all three WTC high-rises have been so symmetrical and
complete?13, 14, 17 We seek
discussion on these points.
8. WTC Fires Did Not Melt Steel
NIST: “In no instance did NIST re****t that steel in the WTC towers melted
due to the fires. The
melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees
Fahrenheit). Normal
building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate
temperatures up to about 1,100
degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST re****ted maximum upper
layer air temperatures
of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC
towers (for example, see
NCSTAR 1, figure 6-36)”.3
Agreed. We also find agreement with Prof. Thomas Eagar on this point:
The fire is the most misunderstood part of the
WTC collapse. Even today, the media re****t (and many scientists
believe) that the steel
melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so
much fuel present.
This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not
unusual, and it was most
definitely not capable of melting steel.18
We are in remarkable agreement, then: the WTC fires were not capable of
melting steel. Of
course, NIST then may have trouble explaining the molten material flowing
out of the South
Tower just before its collapse, as well as evidence for temperatures much
higher than NIST’s
re****ted 1,100 °C.13 We offer to discuss explanations for the observed
high temperatures.
9. Destruction of WTC Steel Evidence
NIST: “NIST possesses 236 structural steel elements from the World Trade
Center (WTC)
buildings. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount
of steel examined at
the various recovery yards where the debris was sent as the WTC site was
cleared. It is
estimated that roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of
steel used in the
construction of the two towers was recovered.” “The lack of WTC 7 steel
precludes tests on
actual material from the structure…”.1
Thus, only a tiny fraction of steel was analyzed from the WTC Towers, and
none of the WTC 7
steel was analyzed by NIST. What happened to the rest of the steel from
the crime scene?
For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade
Center has been and
continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could
answer many questions
about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire
conditions is on the slow
boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy
your next car.
Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of
government officials to the
value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced
collapse in world
history. I have combed through our national standard for fire
investigation, NFPA 921, but
nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of
evidence for buildings
over 10 stories tall.19
And although only a small fraction of the steel was saved for testing, it
is clear that an
“enormous amount” of the WTC steel was examined either for or by NIST, and
the samples selected
were chosen for their identified im****tance to the NIST investigation.20
We agree that only a “small fraction of the enormous amount of steel” from
the Towers was
spared and the rest was rapidly recycled. The destruction of about 99% of
the steel, evidence
from a crime scene, was suspicious and probably illegal, hopefully we can
agree to that.
10. Unusual Bright Flame and Glowing Liquid (WTC 2)
NIST: “An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper
photograph {Fig 9-44} a very
bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding
flames, which is
generating a plume of white smoke, stands out”.4
“NIST re****ted (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot
appeared at the top of a
window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge
on the north face,
followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately
four seconds before
subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in
the seven minutes
leading up to the collapse of this tower”.3
We agree and congratulate NIST for including these observations of an
“unusual flame... which
is generating a plume of white smoke” 4 “followed by the flow of a glowing
liquid” having “an
orange glow” [3]. With regard to the “very bright flame… which is
generating a plume of white
smoke”, NIST effectively rules out burning aluminum, because “Aluminum is
not expected to
ignite at normal fire temperatures…”.3
Again, we agree.
The origins of this very bright flame and of the associated flow of an
orange-glowing liquid
remain open questions in the NIST re****t. NIST opened a very appropriate
line of investigation
by publi****ng these significant clues from the data, 3, 4 providing an
im****tant starting point
for further discussion which we seek.
11. High-Temperature Steel Attack, Sulfidation
FEMA (based on work by a Worchester Polytechnic Institute investigative
team): “Sample 1 (From
WTC 7)… Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the
steel, including
oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was
readily visible in the
near-surface microstructure…. Sample 2 (From WTC 1 or WTC 2)… The thinning
of the steel
occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation
and sulfidation. …The
severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very
unusual event. No clear
explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified… A detailed
study into the
mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed…”2
We agree that the physical evidence for “severe high temperature corrosion
attack” involving
sulfur is compelling. Here we have grounds for an interesting discussion:
How were “severe high
temperatures” reached in the WTC buildings? What is the source of the
sulfur that attacked the
steel in these buildings? The answers to these questions may help us find
the explanation for
the “total collapse” of the Towers and WTC 7 that we are all looking for.
The WPI researchers published their results2, 21 and called for “a
detailed study” of this
“high-temperature” “oxidation and sulfidation” phenomenon. Yet the results
were unfortunately
ignored by NIST in their subsequent re****ts on the Towers’ destruction.3,
4 Their failure to
respond to this do***ented anomaly is a striking phenomenon in itself.
Perhaps NIST will
explain and correct this oversight by considering the high-temperature
sulfidation data in
their long overdue re****t on the collapse of WTC 7. The existence of
severe high temperatures
in the WTC destruction is by now very well established.22 It appears that
NIST has
inadvertently overlooked this evidence and we offer to investigate the
matter with them, in
pursuit of understanding and security.
12. Computer Modeling and Visualizations
NIST: “The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for
WTC 2) was used for
the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then
performed for Cases B
and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic
evidence or eyewitness
re****ts [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the
input, but only
within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance…the pulling
forces on the perimeter
columns by the sagging floors were adjusted...4 “The primary role of the
floors in the collapse
of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing
of perimeter
columns.4 “The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration
of each tower from the
time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable,
i.e., was poised for
collapse…4
We agree that NIST resorted to complex computer simulations and no doubt
“adjusted the input”
to account for the Towers’ destruction, after the fire-endurance physical
tests did not sup****t
their preordained collapse theory.
But the end result of such tweaked computer models, which were provided
without visualizations
and without sufficient detail for others to validate them, is hardly
compelling. An article in
the journal New Civil Engineer states:
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to
show computer
visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from
leading structural and
fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are
routinely used to
validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST]
investigators. …A leading
US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources
to the development of
the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is
not as
sophisticated,” he said. “The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to
new limits, and there
have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls”.23
Further detailed comments on the NIST computer simulations are provided by
Eric Douglas.24
We would like to discuss the computer modeling and extrapolations made by
NIST and the need for
visualizations using numerical and graphical tools to scrutinize and
validate the
finite-element analysis.
13. Total Collapse Explanation Lacking
NIST: “This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007 request for
correction… we are unable
to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”.25
This admission by NIST after publi****ng some 10,000 pages on the collapse
of the Towers shows
admirable candor, yet may come as a bit of a shock to interested parties
including Congress,
which commissioned NIST to find a full explanation.
We agree that NIST so far has not provided a full explanation for the
total collapse. Indeed
they take care to explain that their re****t stops short of the collapse,
only taking the
investigation up to the point where each Tower “was poised for collapse”.4
We offer to help
find that elusive “full explanation of the total collapse” of the WTC
Towers which killed so
many innocent people, in the hope that it does not happen again. We have a
few ideas and can
back these up with experimental data.13, 22 Our interest is in physical
evidence and analysis
leading to a full understanding of the destruction of the WTC.
14. Search for Explosive or Thermite Residues
From a NIST FAQ: [Question: ] “Did the NIST investigation look for
evidence of the WTC towers
being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for
explosives or thermite
residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices
through steel like a
hot knife through butter." [Answer: ] NIST did not test for the residue of
these compounds in
the steel”.3
We agree; there is no evidence that NIST tested for residues of thermite
or explosives. This is
another remarkable admission. Probing for residues from pyrotechnic
materials including
thermite in particular, is specified in fire and explosion investigations
by the NFPA 921 code:
Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues
could arise from
thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.26
Traces of thermite in residues (solidified slag, dust, etc.)
would tell us a great deal about the crime and the cause of thousands of
injuries and deaths.
This is standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations. Perhaps
NIST will explain why
they have not looked for these residues? The code specifies that
fire-scene investigators must
be prepared to justify an exclusion.26
NIST has been asked about this im****tant issue recently, by investigative
re****ter Jennifer Abel:
Abel: "..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for
evidence of
explosives?” Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC re****t]:
"Right, because there was
no evidence of that." Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if
you don't look for it
first? Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're
wasting your time...
and the taxpayers’ money.”.27
The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humorous if not for the
fact that NIST’s
approach here affects the lives of so many innocent people. We do not
think that looking for
thermite or other residues specified in the NFPA 921 code is “wasting your
time.” We may be
able to help out here as well, for we have looked for such residues in the
WTC remains using
state-of-the-art analytical methods, especially in the voluminous toxic
dust that was produced
as the buildings fell and killed thousands of people, and the evidence for
thermite use is
mounting.13, 22
CONCLUSIONS
We have enumerated fourteen areas where we are in agreement with FEMA and
NIST in their
investigations of the tragic and shocking destruction of the World Trade
Center. We agree that
the Towers fell at near free-fall speed and that is an im****tant starting
point. We agree that
several popular myths have been shown to be wrong, such as the idea that
steel in the buildings
melted due to the fires, or that the Towers were hollow tubes, or that
floors “pancaked” to
account for total Tower collapses. We agree that the collapse of the
47-story WTC 7 (which was
not hit by a jet) is hard to explain from the point of view of a
fire-induced mechanism and
that NIST has refused (so far) to look for residues of explosives.3, 22,
27 Our investigative
team would like to build from this foundation and correspond with the NIST
investigation team,
especially since they have candidly conceded (in a reply to some of us in
September 2007):
“…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total
collapse”.25
We are offering to discuss these matters in a civil manner as a matter of
scientific and
engineering courtesy and civic duty. The lives of thousands of people may
very well depend on it.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks for useful discussions with Jim Hoffman, Dr. Gregory Jenkins,
Dr. Jeffrey Farrer,
Prof. Kenneth Kuttler, Prof. David R. Griffin, Gregg Roberts, Brad Larsen,
Gordon Ross, Prof.
David Griscom, Prof. Graeme MacQueen, and researchers at AE911Truth.org
and STJ911.org.
See Reference here.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15081
|
