[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Elon Goes "DARK MAGA" - Joins Trump ON STAGE! Media Melt Down Ensues The Truth About the Memphis Belle (No Hollywood) JD Vance ENDS CNN Dana Bash’s Career LIVE on Air Hell Let Loose - MOATS with George Galloway Important Message: Our Country Our Choice Israel is getting SLAUGHTERED in Lebanon, Americans are trapped | Redacted Warren Buffett has said: “I could end the deficit in five minutes. FBI seizes Diddy tape showing Hillary Clinton killing a child at a 'Freak Off' party Numbers of dairy cow deaths from bird flu increasing to alarming rates Elites Just Told Us How They'll SILENCE US! Reese Report: The 2024 October Surprise? Americans United in Crisis: Mules Carry Supplies to Neighbors Trapped by Hurricanes Devastation in NC NC STATE POLICE WILL START ARRESTING FEDS THAT ARE BLOCKING AIDE FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES France BANS ARMS SALES To Israel & Netanyahu LASHES OUT At Macron | Iran GETS READY CNN Drops Bomb on Tim Walz, Releases Blistering Segment Over Big Scandals in His Own State EU concerned it has no influence over Israel FT How Israels invasion of Lebanon poses risks to Turkiye Obama's New Home in Dubai?, Vaccine Skeptics Need To Be Silenced! Bill Gates Hillary Clinton: We Lose Total Control If Social Media Companies Dont Moderate Content Cancer Patients Report Miraculous Recoveries from Ivermectin Treatment Hurricane Aid Stolen By The State Of Tennessee? The Pentagon requests $1.2bn to continue Red Sea mission US security officials warn of potential threats within two weeks, ramped-up patrols. Massive Flooding Coming From Hurricane Milton How the UK is becoming a ‘third-world’ economy What Would World War III Really Look Like? It's Already Starting... The Roots Of The UK Implosion And Why War Is Inevitable How The Jew Thinks “In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free Arctic summer" John Kerry in 2009

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: NIST: "We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse"
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://georgewashington.blogspot.co ... re-unable-to-provide-full.html
Published: Oct 15, 2007
Author: GW
Post Date: 2007-10-15 18:59:10 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11*     Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 235
Comments: 14

Monday, October 15, 2007

NIST: "We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse"

On April 11th, 2007, family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice filed a petition with NIST demanding that it correct its erroneous methods and findings.

On September 27th, NIST finally replied.

While the reply is mainly bogus, and the filers of the petition intend to appeal the decision of NIST not to correct the many fatal errors in its reports, attorney James Gourley (who drafted the petition) has pointed out one interesting statement. Specifically, NIST says in its reply:

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

Well, yes! That's exactly the point the petitioners are trying to make. No modern steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed before or after 9/11 due to fire other than at WTC 1, 2 and 7, even though other fires have burned longer and hotter. And even if they somehow did start to collapse, the collapse would not have occurred at virtual free-fall speeds while creating enormous dust clouds right from the start.

So yes . . . NIST will forever be "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" unless it stops covering up the evidence that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition. posted by George Washington at 11:10 AM Subscribe to *9-11*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

#1. To: Kamala (#0)

doh bump

Join the Ron Paul Revolution

Lod  posted on  2007-10-15   19:21:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2007-10-16   11:23:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I think to make this razor clear, we need to separate out building 7, the building that wasn't hit by a plane.

Exactly. Although there are MANY things which cast serious doubt on the "official story", NOTHING screams louder than building 7!

99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Steven Wright

innieway  posted on  2007-10-17   11:26:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Below is the NIST PDF converted to text:

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

SEP 27 2007

Distribution

Dear Sirs:

This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007 request for correction, pursuant to Section 515 of P.L. 106-544 (the Information Quality Act) that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) received on April 12, 2007. In your letter, you make several assertions regarding aspects of the final reports of the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigaifon of the World Trade Center Disaster where you believe that the reports violate the Data Quality Act and NIST's Information Quality Standards. NIST's responses to your request for change are explained in detail below.

A. Rejection of the Less Severe Damage Estimates

In your letter, you assert that NIST violated the Information Quality Standard by rejecting the less severe damage estimates for both WTC 1 and WTC 2. In its analyses, NIST used an orthogonal factorial design approach (refer to NCSTAR 1-6, Chapter 5) to establish the influential parameters and reduce the total number of analyses that needed to be conducted. 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 aircraft impact. 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 interior 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. At every step of its analysis, NIST was able to validate the analytical results against the extensive collection of photographic and video evidence recorded on September 11. The NIST team, based on a careful analysis of the available visual evidence and engineering judgment, made the decision not to fully analyze the less severe case. NIST has fully documented the technical basis (refer to NCSTAR 1-6 (pp 290-294) and NCSTAR 1-2 Chapter 7 (pp. 167-298) for not conducting a full analysis of the less severe damage case in its reports and is therefore denying your request to include a detailed computer simulation using the less severe damage estimate.

The statement in NCSTAR 1-2, page 167, "The less severe damage case 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 that 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," 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 which is posted to the NIST WTC web site at wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTARl-2index.htm and is attached to this letter.

B. NIST Computer Simulations

In your letter you refer to Figures 9-2 and 9-3 in NCSTAR 1-6 that show the full analysis tree for influential parameter effects (Figure 9-2) and the resulting "pruned" analysis tree (Figure 9-3). As documented in NCSTAR 1-6, Chapter 5, the "pruned" analysis tree resulted from an orthogonal factorial design of experiments analysis to identify the most influential parameters.

You further assert in your letter that the exclusion of the less severe and base cases from the full structural analysis is an example of circular logic. NIST has used an extensive database of photographic and video evidence to validate the models used to analyze the behavior of the towers up to the point of initiation of collapse. The full analysis of the more severe case is therefore based upon a logical reduction in the full analysis tree through an orthogonal factorial design approach and through validation by comparison to the observable data. NIST has fully documented its analysis approach in its reports (refer to NCSTAR 1-6 (pp 290-294) and NCSTAR 1-2 Chapter 7 (pp. 167-298) and is denying your request for inclusion of all computer simulations depicted in Figure 9-2 of NCSTAR 1-6 for the reasons given in the report.

C. Information in Figure 9-3 Violates the OMB and NIST IQS Objectivity Standards

Your letter asserts that because the isolated core models did not converge on a solution when subjected to Case B (WTC 1) and Case D (WTC 2) impact damage and fire conditions, the "pruned" analysis tree depicted in Figure 9-3 of NCSTAR 1-6 is incorrect. The isolated core model was used by NIST to inform its global analysis by analyzing this particular building subsystem, and the report documents the fact that this particular model did not include the hat truss, which was necessary to transfer load to the exterior columns. In section of 8.3 of NCSTAR 1-6, NIST documents that Cases B and D impact damage and fire conditions were used for the global analyses of WTC 1 and 2 respectively. Thus, there is no inconsistency between the text of NCSTAR 1-6 and the information depicted in Figure 9-3.

Your letter further requests that NIST revise the report to state that the computer simulations did not predict that WTC 2 would collapse from the aircraft impact damage and the resulting fires or revise the statement that "significant weakening of the core due to aircraft damage and thermal effects" was "necessary" for structural collapse. Section 8.5 of NCSTAR 1-6 documents the results of the WTC 2 analysis and the sequence of events leading up to the initiation of collapse. Further, the statement that significant weakening of the core due to aircraft damage and thermal effects was necessary for structural collapse is based on the results of the analysis of both the damaged structure and the undamaged structure subjected to the same fire conditions. We believe this statement is correct and useful, and do not plan to make revisions as requested.

D. Floor Sagging

Your letter asserts that the amount of floor sagging calculated by computer models and the amount of floor sagging measured during tests conducted in accordance with the ASTM E119 standard are clearly inconsistent with each other. As a part of its investigation, NIST conducted four tests of floor assemblies representative of WTC floor construction. Two of these tests were conducted on

17 ft long specimens in a thermally restrained condition with two different fireproofing thicknesses (refer to NCSTAR 1-6, Chapter 3). Two specimens 35 ft in length were also tested, one in a thermally restrained condition and one in a thermally unrestrained condition. The 35 ft specimens were similar in length to the floor assemblies on the short sides of the WTC Towers. The ASTM E119 test follows a prescribed thermal profile as specified by the standard and is used to obtain a fire resistance rating for floor assemblies. However, it is not possible to compare the floor sagging observed during the ASTM El 19 tests with the floor sagging calculated by the analysis models. The ASTM E119 furnace profile is not representative of real fire condition. In addition the specimens had been fireproofed which prevented the steel from heating as quickly as it would in an unprotected condition as was modeled based on the estimated damage to the fireproofing due to debris impact. Finally, deflection of the floor assemblies undergoing the ASTM E119 testing was limited to prevent damage to instrumentation. Visual data of the WTC Towers confirmed significant floor sagging at several locations in the towers. NIST has fully documented the ASTM El 19 tests and the analysis modeling in its reports (NCSTAR 1-6,1-6B, and 1-6D). There is no inconsistency present in these results, and therefore your request for correction is being denied.

E. The WTC Steel Temperature

Your letter asserts that temperatures reached by steel recovered by NIST for the investigation, directly contradicts the temperatures calculated by the analytical models. NIST has stated that, "the steel recovered is sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and, in combination with published literature, for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance" (NCSTAR 1-3, Section E.2). NIST noted in NCSTAR 1-3 that the core columns recovered from floors where fires were known to have occurred represent 1 percent of the columns in those areas. While NIST did not find evidence that any of the recovered core columns experienced temperatures in excess of 250° C, it is not possible to extrapolate from such a small sample size to state that none of the core columns on the fire affected floors reached temperatures in excess of 250° C. Further, the analytical models of the fire growth and spread are consistent with the observable data for the WTC Towers. On this basis, your request that NIST revise NCSTAR 1 -6 to make its computer simulation conditions consistent with the conditions used for fire resistance rating tests of the floor assembly is being denied.

F. The Goal of the WTC Report and Its Overall Analysis

The final section of your request asserts that the WTC Report's stated goal and overall analysis violates the Data Quality Act and OMB/NIST Information Quality Standards. The basis given for this assertion is that NIST did not fulfill its responsibilities under the NCST Act because the focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. The NCST Act, as you note in your letter, requires NIST to "establish the likely technical cause or causes of the building failure." In the case of the WTC Towers, NIST has established that the failures initiated in the floors affected by the aircraft impact damage and the ensuing fires resulted in the collapses of the towers. This conclusion is supported by large body of visual evidence collected by NIST. Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution.

Your letter contends that NIST's report violates the Information Quality Standard of "utility." NIST believes that the report has utility. In fact, the codes and standards bodies are already taking actions to improve building and fire codes and standards based on the findings of the WTC Investigation. As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse.

Your letter also contends that the NIST report is biased because it considered only the scenario of fuel laden commercial jetliners impacting the towers, yet contrary to all available data, you offer no evidence that this scenario did not occur. Statement of this fact in the report establishes the cause of the initial damage state and the source of ignition for the fires in the towers. It does not introduce a bias into the findings of the investigation.

Your letter further asserts that NIST failed to take into account interviews of emergency personnel that suggested the presence of bombs in the towers. NIST reviewed all of the interviews conducted by the FDNY of firefighters (500 interviews) and in addition conducted its own set of interviews with emergency responders and building occupants. Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC Towers.

Your letter requests several corrections based upon these assertions. The first five of these requested corrections address removing bias toward finding that the impact of jet airliners plus the resulting fires were the only cause of collapse of the WTC Towers. The WTC Investigation was conducted in a manner fully consistent with the NCST Act and the utility of the recommendations has been established by the codes and standards community which has already moved to adopt changes to codes and standards based on the recommendations. NIST has reviewed the full body of firefighter interviews and conducted its own interviews of first responders and building occupants and taken as a whole, these first person accounts do not support the assertion of blasts occurring below the impact zone. Finally, as NIST has noted in the frequently asked questions page on the NIST WTC website, wtc.nist.gov, NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue and such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive. Therefore, your requests for corrections (Items a-e in your letter) are denied.

Your letter also makes three requests for changes to Section 6.14.4 under the objectivity standard to include: (1) supporting data with transparent documentation and identification of error sources, with regards to the potential energy released during the downward movement of the upper stories, the absorptive capacity of the intact structure below the collapse zone, and the increase in the falling mass below the collapse zone; (2) to revise the section if NIST finds the absorptive capacity of the intact structure below the collapse zone was greater than the energy released by the falling stories; and (3) to include the results of tests for explosive residue. With regard to the first request, NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST's analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation. The text of section 6.14.4 is based upon the analysis of photographic and video evidence of the collapses from several vantage points. With respect to the second request for change, it was most critical for NIST to explain why the collapse initiated. Once the collapse initiated, it is clear from the available evidence that the building was unable to resist the falling mass of the upper stories of the towers. Finally, NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. NIST did not conduct tests for

explosive residue and as noted above, such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive. Therefore, your requests for corrections (items f-h) are denied.

The final request for change in your letter is for NIST to revise the WTC Report to make the information useful in accordance with the information quality standards. As noted previously in this letter, the codes and standards development organizations have already begun taking action to adopt changes to building and fire codes and standards that respond directly to the NIST recommendations. Codes and standards are established by the private sector, although NIST research and in this case the findings of a failure investigation provide the technical basis for these changes. Clearly, the report has utility with the professional community that will implement the recommendations. On this basis, this request for change is denied.

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you may submit an appeal within 30 calendar days of the date of the initial decision. Such an appeal must be made in writing and addressed to:

Deputy Director
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1000
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1000

An appeal of an initial denial must include:

a. the requester's name, current home or business address, and telephone number or
electronic mail address;
b. a copy of the original request and any correspondence regarding the initial denial; and
c. a statement of the reasons why the requester believes the initial denial was in error.

Thank you for your interest. If you have questions or concerns, you may contact me at info.quality(a)jiist.gov. Please refer to www.nist.gov/director/qualitystandards.htm for additional information.

Sincerely,

/s/

Catherine S. Fletcher
Chief, Management and Organization Division

Distribution:
Bob Mcllvaine
Bill Doyle
Dr. Steven Jones
Kevin Ryan
Richard Gage
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice c/o Frank Legge

cc: James Gourley

Original Text:

The less severe damage case 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 that 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.

Corrected Text: 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). This change corrects an inconsistency between the statement in NCSTAR 1-2 and NCSTAR 1-6.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-10-18   6:13:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Hey thanks for the entire letter. I will print and save this. If you ever come across anything of importance that I or others have overlooked or missed, please post. Thanks.

Mark

If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower

Kamala  posted on  2007-10-18   7:11:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I don't know how anyone can accept that the towers simply collapsed onto themselves, exploding into dust most of the concrete contained in the floors.

If a building is weakened, unless that weakening is perfectly the same in each of the four corners and key points in the interior, it CANNOT FALL INTO ITSELF.

The falling debris above would fall the path of least resistance, not the path of most resistance. It's ludricrous on its face. The fact that so many scientists say it makes sense is one good indicator of how thoroughly owned those scientists are.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-18   7:18:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2007-10-18   10:00:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0186.htm

http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id357.html

http://muckrakerreport.com/id388.html

Not only is there no mention, NIST bailed out on the "investigation" of wtc7 and "awarded" it to a DOD contractor.

Mark

If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower

Kamala  posted on  2007-10-18   13:43:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2007-10-18   13:47:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Not to split hairs, but am I right that there is no mention of WTC 7 in this letter?

It is not really splitting hairs. It appears that, thus far, the near free-fall collapse of WTC7 remains officially unexplainable.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-10-19   0:10:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Below is a text copy of the Request for Correction of Jerry F. Hass represented by Attorney Jerry Leaphart.

[nc note: - all emphasis as it appears at following site. Embedded notation "(Bold emphasis added)" as it appears at following site.]

[nc note: Attorney Jerry Leaphart has also filed a Request for Correction representing Dr. Judy Wood.]

www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPol...ion_Quality/PROD01_002622

Fire Investigation Report on World Trade Center Bldg 7

Effort to halt government WTC7 investigation launched

March 1, 2007 - The following Request for Correction was e-mailed to the National Institute of Standards and Technology on February 28, 2007. It will be certified mailed on March 1, 2007. Attorney Jerry Leaphart has informed me that he will work on the legal papers for an injunction this weekend.

The subject matter within this Request for Correction and pending filing for injunction is purposeful. The reader might be tempted to conclude that many other contradictions found within the government investigation of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 should have been referenced in this Request for Correction. I can assure you that great thought went into this effort and it mirrors the advice of counsel. What some might conclude as “too narrow” is actually advantageous to achieving the goal - the truth.

Please support the Muckraker Report in this effort.

February 28, 2007

VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL RRR

Chief, Management and Organization Division
National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 3220
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3220
Email: info.quality@nist.gov

Re: Requests for Correction per Section 515 of Public Law 106-554

Dear Chief, Management and Organization Division:

This is a matter involving the “information” that has been “disseminated” that serves a useful purpose of making sure that the ongoing investigation of what caused the destruction of World Trade Center building number 7 (WTC7) complies with data and information quality standards. For all of the reasons set forth below in conjunction with specific requests for correction, such standards are in significant danger of being utterly and completely violated.

This request is submitted by Edward F. Haas (requester). My address, telephone number and email address are as set forth above. In addition, Attorney Jerry V. Leaphart represents me in this matter. I request that all subsequent replies be sent to both me and to my counsel whose contact information is set forth below.

The requests for correction of information submitted hereunder are submitted under Section 515 of Public Law 106-554.

The particular information disseminated that is the subject of the request consists in:

CORRECTION REQUEST ISSUE 1

The information is identified and known as "Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster WTC 7 Technical Approach and Status Summary" and is dated as December 12, 2006. (Information Item No. 1)

The source from which requester obtained the information is the NIST web site at the following page: wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf

Requester obtained the information from and after December 12, 2006 from the said web page. It is understood and acknowledged that said information has been disseminated so as to provide a status of an ongoing investigation, and that said investigation is seriously imperiled by the incorporation of information that requires, at a minimum, the corrections set forth and requested hereunder.

Requester submits this request on behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons. Requester is a citizen of the United States and maintains a web site for the accurate dissemination and propagation of governmental information. Requester’s business is in the nature of a research and journalistic organization that has succeeded in providing citizens of the United States with timely information concerning the function and the operation of various governmental agencies that are charged by their enabling legislation, rules and regulations of conducting certain duties in and for the public interest, of which and about which each citizen has a vital interest.

As indicated, this request is to be understood as being submitted by requester in his said capacity and either additionally or alternatively on behalf of other similarly situated persons who are too numerous to quantify or specifically name. Requester is adversely affected by the ongoing threat of promulgation of information that is in need of correction because the present course of action may result in the further concealment of serious wrongdoing.

Specifically, Information Item No. 1 fails to comply with applicable information quality guidelines and standards in a number of particular ways, including, but not limited to inclusion of the following demonstrably false statement found at page 11 of Information Item No. 1:

“NIST is analyzing scenarios for the event that initiated the collapse of WTC 7. As a part of this work, NIST is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST will estimate the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements as a result of blast.” (Bold emphasis added)

Requester asserts that the quoted information is demonstrably false and misleading and must be corrected, together with other information that, at present, also contains false and misleading statements. Said information is false in and as a result of the following particulars:

NIST’s NCSTSAR 1 report, issued in or about the month of October 2005, contains the following statement that must be deemed applicable to the ongoing investigation of what caused the 6.6-second destruction of WTC building 7 and to Information Item No. 1:

“NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.” (Bold emphasis added)

It is to be noted that NCSTAR 1 repeats the above quoted phrase in no fewer than three widely separated passages of that document; namely: pgs xxxvii, 146, and 176, respectively.

Separate and apart from an analysis of the context in which the quoted statement is to be found, there exists a profound difference between the quoted statement and the statement that is now found in connection with the ongoing work of determining what caused the symmetrical, 6.6 second destruction of WTC 7 and quoted above; namely, the quoted statement from page 11 of Information Item No. 1 that completely contradicts the quoted portion of NCSTAR 1. For purposes of clarity and ease of comparison the two different and mutually contradictory statements are set forth below, one right after the other:

Pg. xxxvii of NCSTAR 1 states:

“NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.”

But, Pg. 11 of "Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster WTC 7 Technical Approach and Status Summary” of December 12, 2006 states, in specifically relevant part:

“While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event…”

It is seen, therefore, that NIST is making a decidedly different claim now where the previously published concept of no “corroborating evidence” of a certain, specifically limited type of controlled demolition; namely, a controlled demolition brought about by a highly specific factual subset - explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001 - has been morphed, changed and broadened far beyond what NIST previously said lacked corroboration into a blanket statement that NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event.

That statement is false and must be corrected.

The distinctions here articulated are significant and substantial. They make a difference.

The statement “corroborating evidence,” by definition, indicates there was some evidence of controlled demolition as, indeed, the <10-second, complete, total annihilation of the two WTC towers is, in and of itself, evidence of controlled demolition. Indeed, NIST, in articulating the lack of “corroborating evidence” also contributed to the present need for correction because, to requester’s knowledge, NIST does not reveal the details regarding what evidence there was that was not “corroborated”.

NIST, then, should correct NCSTAR 1 by articulating what evidence it had that it could not corroborate.

Thus, this request for correction should be understood to entail, contain and include a request for correction of NCSTAR 1 in conjunction with and as a necessary adjunct to the correction of Information Item No. 1 that pertains to the ongoing investigation of the destruction of WTC 7.

NIST has also plainly acknowledged that it did not investigate what it defined as the “event of collapse” as is plainly admitted in footnote 2 of the Executive Summary of NCSTAR 1 where the following quotation is to be found:

"The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." [See NCSTAR 1, pgs xxxvii, footnote 2 and/or 82, footnote 13] (Bold emphasis added)

Thus, it is quite clear that had NIST claimed there was “no evidence” of controlled demolition of the WTC towers, NCSTAR 1 would have been criminally fraudulent on its face had it attempted, on one hand, to acknowledge no investigation was done of what occurred during the actual destruction phase of the buildings and then claimed, on the other, that it lacked evidence of what it did not investigate.

Indeed, one reason why NIST could not “corroborate” evidence of controlled demolition is that it did not look for it. This is something that NIST must now specifically acknowledge so as not to continue misleading the public.

Accordingly, let this request for correction also serve to place NIST on notice that any further refusal by NIST to acknowledge that it cannot rule out the possibility of controlled demolition or otherwise state that it has found no evidence of controlled demolition in a context that suggests that it had looked for and did not find such evidence may be considered as indicative of fraud and of deception.

NIST cannot now state it has found no evidence of controlled demolition because that is decidedly not what it previously stated; and, in any event, having not looked for such evidence in the time and place where it might have been found, NIST must further correct the record.

In furtherance of the burden of proof that I, the affected person, have in this correction request, I hereby state that the ordinary meaning of the words and the phrase “corroborating evidence” as taken from the American Heritage Dictionary where the entry for corroborating states, and I quote: cor·rob·o·rate tr.v. cor·rob·o·rat·ed, cor·rob·o·rat·ing, cor·rob·o·rates: To strength or support with other evidence, make more certain. See Synonyms at confirm.

Strengthen and support with other evidence. NIST cannot continue on its present fraudulent path. It is fraud to now say there was no evidence of controlled demolition when NIST previously stated something entirely different.

This conflict in publicly disseminated information compels NIST to issue a correction forthwith.

In its investigation of the destruction of WTC1 and WTC2, NIST failed to explore a controlled demolition hypothesis. Presumably, NIST did not pursue a controlled demolition hypothesis during its WTC1 and WTC2 investigation because it maintained that it had found no corroborating evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event. However, NIST claims that it is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the destruction of WTC7. This is suspect and demands correction. In regard to the WTC7 investigation NIST maintains:

While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST will estimate the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements as a result of blast.

In order to do that, NIST will have to revisit NCSTAR 1 and undertake an analysis of what happened during the 10-second destruction of the twin towers, something it did not previously do. It cannot reasonably set up hypothetical blast scenarios that disregard what actually happened.

This, then, takes us into a second request for correction, as follows.

CORRECTION REQUEST ISSUE 2

The particular information disseminated that is the subject of this request consists in:

That certain information disseminated as solicitation number SB1341-06-Q-0186, which resulted in the issuance of a fixed price purchase order awarded by the federal government to Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) of Albuquerque, New Mexico in or about March, 2006. (Information Item No. 2)

The source from which requester obtained the information is the NIST web site at the following page: wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/

Requester obtained the information from and after December 12, 2006 from the said web page. It is understood and acknowledged that said information has been disseminated so as to comply with a requirement that contracts awarded to third party contractors may be known to the public and for other reasons, including, by way of example, the ability to request corrections.

Requester submits this request on behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons. Requester is a citizen of the United States and maintains a web site for the accurate dissemination and propagation of governmental information. Requester’s business is in the nature of a research and journalistic organization that has succeeded in providing citizens of the United States with timely information concerning the function and the operation of various governmental agencies that are charged by their enabling legislation, rules and regulations of conducting certain duties in and for the public interest, of which and about which each citizen has a vital interest.

As indicated, this request is to be understood as being submitted by requester in his said capacity and either additionally or alternatively on behalf of other similarly situated persons who are too numerous to quantify or specifically name. Requester is adversely affected by the ongoing threat of promulgation of information that is in need of correction because the present course of action may result in the further concealment of serious wrongdoing.

Specifically, Information Item No. 2 fails to comply with applicable information quality guidelines and standards in a number of particular ways, including, but not limited to the fact that an inherent and definite conflict of interest arises as a result of the scope of work set out in Information Item No. 2.

The investigation of what caused the destruction of WTC7 has been compromised by the conclusions reached by NIST in its WTC1 and WTC2 investigation conclusions that indicated, as quoted above, and as summarized here, that evidence of controlled demolition could not be corroborated.

A controlled demolition conclusion at WTC7 would indeed challenge the integrity of the WTC1 / WTC2 collapse sequence report. The fact that many of the same scientists, experts, subcontractors, and associates responsible for the WTC1 / WTC2 conclusions are now working on the WTC7 investigation creates a conflict of interest concern because of inherent pressure to conform the outcome of the investigation of what caused the destruction of WTC 7 to that which they indicated caused the “initiation” of (but not actual destruction of) destruction of WTC 1,2...

In solicitation number SB1341-06-Q-0186 to Applied Research Associates, Inc. it states:

Research involving human subjects is not permitted under this award unless expressly authorized by in writing by the NIST Contracting Officer.

Under GSA Contract number GS23F0278M, NIST Order No. SB1341-06-8-0539, as a firm fixed price effort, has been awarded to APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA) of Albuquerque, New Mexico, to append the following tasks to the original contract awarded on March 31, 2006 (SB1341-06-Q-0186). Under the appended tasks, the ARA (1) shall conduct analyses of impact damage and fire effects to provide candidate initiating events, which may lead to structural failures and global collapse, and (2) shall determine if there is any scenario of a hypothetical blast event or events that could have occurred in WTC 7 on September 11, 2001.

This study will reportedly be managed from the Silicon Valley Office of ARA that specializes in finite element analysis and nonlinear structural dynamics under blast and impact loading, impact and penetration mechanics, failure analysis, and blast effects and the analysis of progressive collapse in buildings. ARA is partnering with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. (SGH) of Waltham, Massachusetts, to conduct the appended tasks, and with Loizeaux Group International (LGI), the consulting services branch of Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland.

SGH is an engineering firm that specializes in design, investigation and retrofit of buildings and structures of all types. SGH has expertise in building structures, materials, and investigations and conducted the thermal-structural response analyses of each WTC tower, as part of their contract for the WTC towers investigation.

Loizeaux Group International (LGI) has expertise in a wide range of demolition, explosion and explosives-associated technology. This includes explosive processes and their direct and collateral effects of blast and resulting vibration, projectiles, and overpressure. They have conducted investigations involving commercial explosives, terrorist devices, commercial gas, and industrial accidents involving dusts, hot metals, and combustion processes.

The fact that ARA, SGH, and LGI are prohibited from interviewing human subjects unless expressly authorized in writing by the NIST Contracting Officer calls into question the quality, utility, objectivity, integrity, and transparency of the hypothetical blast scenario research. Indeed, much of the anecdotal information available to me confirms that there are both eyewitnesses to controlled demolition, consisting in people who have made public statements that they either heard and saw explosions and/or heard countdowns and then saw a destruction event that looked, well, controlled. Furthermore, more recently, evidence of controlled demolition has been made public consisting in video footage indicating a major news source, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC), aired a claim that WTC7 had “collapsed” several minutes before it actually did. Indeed, some video indicates a verbal claim of collapse with the building still standing in the background.

It has long been known that a key person, Larry Silverstein, a principal owner of property interests in the World Trade Center complex, indicated, in substance that a decision was made to “pull” - that is - demolish WTC 7.

That key investigators cannot interview such persons, without going through administrative hoops is absurd. Moreover, in at least one of these instances, advance knowledge that WTC 7 was to be demolished might well lead to criminal charges. NIST contractors such as ARA, SGH, and LGI are not qualified to conduct criminal investigations or criminal interviews or criminal interrogations.

Thus, not only is there an inherent conflict of interest in that some or all of these same parties were involved in the investigation of WTC1 and WTC2 that could not find “corroborating evidence” of controlled demolition, thus preordaining the same outcome for the WTC7 investigation, there is the possibility these contractors could taint a criminal investigation.

There is yet another problem.

Any evidence of a controlled demolition might, conceivably implicate one or more of the sub-contractors because some of them are entities that have expertise in controlled demolitions. For example, let us consider Controlled Demolition Inc., or one or more of its employees, past and present, and its subcontractors. The universe of individuals having the capability to carryout controlled demolition work is somewhat limited. Such skills are not generally found among the general population.

The range of people who could carryout such demolitions are necessarily limited. Upon information and belief, CDI carries out more than 70% of all controlled demolitions conducted in the US.

It stands to reason that past and present employees of CDI could be parties of interest to any criminal investigator investigating a controlled demolition event at WTC7 because these people clearly possess the technical expertise to “pull” any structure by controlled demolition.

I, as a requester, do not have to elaborate this issue overmuch. The potential conflict is clear and apparent and cries out for correction.

To continue to allow a hypothetical blast event investigation within the WTC7 investigation, done by the current crop of subcontractors demonstrates a lack of quality, utility, objectivity, integrity, and transparency within the investigation that is clear, apparent and incontrovertible.

NIST, ARA, SGH, and LGI, the consulting branch of CDI, are not qualified to conduct a proper investigation of whether or not a controlled demolition of WTC7 occurred. The fact that ARA, SGH, and LGI are prohibited from interviewing human subjects unless expressly authorized in writing by the NIST Contracting Officer calls into question the quality, utility, objectivity, integrity, and transparency of the hypothetical blast scenario research in its own right. Moreover, even if they were allowed to do so, or granted permission to do so, another confounding variable exists because those parties should not be permitted to taint a possible criminal investigation.

ARA, SGH, and LGI are not qualified to conduct criminal investigations or criminal interviews or criminal interrogations. Controlled Demolition Inc., its employees past and present, and its subcontractors would be a parties of interest to any criminal investigator investigating a controlled demolition event at WTC7 because these people clearly possess the technical expertise to “pull” any structure by controlled demolition. From a criminal investigation standpoint, CDI would have to be cleared of suspicion prior to being solicited to assist in the investigation.

NIST, ARA, SGH, and LGI must cease their hypothetical blast scenario investigation forthwith because continuing with it is hopelessly tainted, compromised and damaged, and NIST must acknowledge as much.

By copy of this Correction Request to my counsel, Jerry V. Leaphart of Jerry V. Leaphart and Associates, P.C., I hereby request that he file for an injunction preventing NIST from going forward with any further issuance of any report on what caused the 6.6 second destruction of WTC 7 pending the resolution of this Correction Request.

Respectfully submitted,

Edward F. Haas

Cc

Jerry V. Leaphart
8 West Street
Suite 203
Danbury, CT 06810

Last Updated:
March 14, 2007

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-10-19   0:15:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Below is the NIST DENIAL OF DR. JUDY WOOD REQUEST FOR CORRECTION

While NIST acknowledged, "Your request for correction asserts that"...NIST completely failed to satisfy the first objective that it claimed to address in NCSTAR 1," namely to determine [...] and why and how WTC 7 collapsed."

Considering this NIST response, perhaps another investigation is required to discover the NIST determination of "why and how WTC 7 collapsed."

http://drjudywood.com/pdf/070727_PROD01_003222.pdf

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Response to Request for Correction from Dr. Judy Wood, dated March 16, 2007
27 July 2007, by NIST, Catherine S. Fletcher
Chief, Management and Organization
National Institute of Standards and Technologydataed July 27, 2007,
USPS mail from Catherine Fletcher to Dr. Wood, dated July 30, 2007

-----

[nc note: boldface/underline emphasis added by me.]

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

JUL 27 2007

Dr. Judy Wood
202 Mulberry Avenue
Clemson, SC 29631

Dear Dr. Wood:

This letter is in response to your March 16, 2007 request for correction, and your March 29, 2007 and April 20, 2007 supplements, which included witness statements from first responders interviewed by the World Trade Center Task Force, pursuant to Section 515 of P.L. 106-544 (the Information Quality Act) that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) received on March 16, 2007, March 29, 2007, and April 20, 2007, respectively. In your letters you challenge the premises and the "probable collapse sequence" proposed by NIST in NCSTAR 1 explaining the sequence of events leading up to the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. As an alternative, you assert in your letters that "the evidence confirms that the World Trade Center towers were felled by use of Directed Energy Weaponry." In addition, you assert that Applied Research Associates (ARA), a NIST WTC Investigation contractor, had a conflict of interest in performing work for the WTC Investigation because ARA is a "significant manufacturer of directed energy weapons and/or components thereof." For the reasons presented below, NIST is denying your request for correction and does not plan to retract the NCSTAR 1 report as you have requested.. To facilitate communication, the term "collapse" as used in this letter and in NCSTAR 1 means a falling in, loss of shape, or reduction to flattened form or rubble of a structure. As stated in NCSTAR 1, NIST only investigated the factors leading to the initiation of the collapses of the WTC towers, not the collapses themselves.

Your request for correction asserts that"...NIST completely failed to satisfy the first objective that it claimed to address in NCSTAR 1," namely 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. Your request for correction further asserts that NIST's findings violate the Law of Conservation of Momentum and the Law of Conservation of Energy. NIST has examined the photographs you provided in conjunction with all the other evidence and has found that the evidence does not support a theory involving directed energy weapons. The NIST analysis satisfied both the momentum and energy conservation principles and, in fact, appropriately accounted for the energy absorbed through inelastic ductile behavior of components and fractures, failures, and buckling of components. NIST fully documented its technical approach to the analysis of the aircraft impacts and the resulting damage to the WTC towers (refer to NCSTAR 1-2 and associated technical topic reports NCSTAR 1-2A and 1-2B). The analysis results were verified by using extensive photographic and video evidence. Similarly, NCSTAR 1-5 and 1-6 (and the associated technical topic reports) document the analysis of the fire

-----

growth and spread, the thermal analysis, and the response of the damaged structures to fire loads up to the point of collapse initiation. The progression of the fires through the building and the structural response was again validated using the extensive visual evidence available. The rigorous technical approach employed by NIST resulted in findings consistent with all of the available evidence. NIST has analyzed the evidence you provided, and the totality of the evidence still supports NIST's conclusions.

In your supplement of March 29,2007 you also assert that Applied Research Associates, one of the contractors involved in the investigation, has a "significant, clear and palpable conflict of interest that adversely affects the quality and the integrity of the work done by ARA for NIST." Prior to award, each NIST WTC Investigation Contractor underwent a rigorous organizational conflict of interest analysis. As a result of the analysis, ARA was determined not to have an organizational conflict of interest. In addition, each contract contained a provision requiring the contractor to notify NIST immediately should any organizational conflict of interest arise during the course of the contract, and no such conflicts of interest were reported. You further claim that ARA is a significant manufacturer of directed energy weapons and/or components thereof. Since there is no factual evidence to support this claim, NIST has no basis for accepting your proposed corrections to NCSTAR 1.

In conclusion, NIST is denying your request for correction because the NIST analysis of the initiation of the collapse of the WTC towers was thorough and based on all of the available evidence, and NIST continues to believe that the report is not fraudulent, deceptive or misleading.

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you may submit an appeal within 30 calendar days of the date of the initial decision. Such an appeal must be made in writing and addressed to:

Deputy Director
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1000
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1000

An appeal of an initial denial must include:

a. the requester's name, current home or business address, and telephone number or electronic mail address;
b. a copy of the original request and any correspondence regarding the initial denial; and
c. a statement of the reasons why the requester believes the initial denial was in error.

---

Thank you for your interest. If you have questions or concerns, you may contact me at info.quality@nist.gov. Please refer to http://www.nist/.gov/quality_standards.htm for additional information.

Sincerely,

/s/

Catherine S. Fletcher
Chief. Management and Organization Division

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-10-19   0:27:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST will estimate the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements as a result of blast.”

one can only laugh out loud.

christine  posted on  2007-10-19   0:55:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

There is no limit to what evidence they do not find. It seems to be proportional to the effort expended in not looking.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-10-19   1:23:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]