Letter to US Dept. of Commerce Concerning NIST & WTC7
Jan 16, 2014 10:38:57 GMT -5
richardcavessa likes this
Post by bob0627 on Jan 16, 2014 10:38:57 GMT -5
As you may or may not know, the official NIST Report concerning the collapse initiation sequence of WTC7 on 9/11 is actually a theory advanced by NIST based on the failure of column 79. The problem with the theory is that NIST deliberately misrepresented/omitted critical structural components and used contrived data to support its theory. The following is a link to a letter that was sent to the US Department of Commerce, with copies to all members of Congress, from Dr. William F. Pepper. The letter includes a detailed description (technical discussion) of findings by several experts on the subject.
The following is an excerpt from the letter:
The underlying issue stems from the official NIST Report (NIST NCSTAR 1-9-Nov. 2008) which basically contends that for the first time in history, the symmetrical, complete collapse of a large, fire protected, 47 story steel framed building was said to be fire induced.
Since the issuance of this NIST Report, members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, as well as other independent researchers have vigorously disputed the conclusions of the NIST and its Report. 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.
After the discovery of these omissions, the group of engineers who discovered them pressed for nearly two years to get an answer to the question as to why these critical features were omitted from the Report’s discussion and analysis. They were greeted with silence until October 25, 2013 when a NIST public relations official (not a professional engineer) finally acknowledged that the stiffeners had been omitted, but incredibly (from an engineering standpoint) said they were not necessary to consider.
My clients are in disbelief and aghast that the Report, in the first instance, would omit a discussion of these material features and then slough off the omission by stating that, in respect to the stiffeners, it was not “necessary” for them to be considered.
It should also be noted that the NIST public relations official did not address the omission of the lateral support beams.
This group of architects and engineers, unanimously believe that the NIST Report’s conclusion of collapse due to fire could not have been justified if the stiffeners and the lateral support beams were not omitted.
Please see link below for the entire letter:
www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf
The following is an excerpt from the letter:
The underlying issue stems from the official NIST Report (NIST NCSTAR 1-9-Nov. 2008) which basically contends that for the first time in history, the symmetrical, complete collapse of a large, fire protected, 47 story steel framed building was said to be fire induced.
Since the issuance of this NIST Report, members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, as well as other independent researchers have vigorously disputed the conclusions of the NIST and its Report. 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.
After the discovery of these omissions, the group of engineers who discovered them pressed for nearly two years to get an answer to the question as to why these critical features were omitted from the Report’s discussion and analysis. They were greeted with silence until October 25, 2013 when a NIST public relations official (not a professional engineer) finally acknowledged that the stiffeners had been omitted, but incredibly (from an engineering standpoint) said they were not necessary to consider.
My clients are in disbelief and aghast that the Report, in the first instance, would omit a discussion of these material features and then slough off the omission by stating that, in respect to the stiffeners, it was not “necessary” for them to be considered.
It should also be noted that the NIST public relations official did not address the omission of the lateral support beams.
This group of architects and engineers, unanimously believe that the NIST Report’s conclusion of collapse due to fire could not have been justified if the stiffeners and the lateral support beams were not omitted.
Please see link below for the entire letter:
www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf