AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thread title changed to reflect content. Original title was "NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False"

And a bullet point summary would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Dr. William Pepper is an interesting chap, long standing conspiracy theorist lawyer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Francis_Pepper
It's a shame a more neutral person could not be found to act as point, as his history is going to prejudice the consideration your letter will receive.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Dr. William Pepper is an interesting chap, long standing conspiracy theorist lawyer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Francis_Pepper
It's a shame a more neutral person could not be found to act as point, as his history is going to prejudice the consideration your letter will receive.
So you think that the OIG will try to attack the messenger rather than address the content of the letter? Personally I think that will not be an option for them although it is a tactic that I would expect people to get away with in blogs and other online forums. In a way it reassures me when people are unable to pick holes in the evidence and have to resort to such logical fallacies. It shows the strength of the evidence.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
So you think that the OIG will try to attack the messenger rather than address the content of the letter? Personally I think that will not be an option for them although it is a tactic that I would expect people to get away with in blogs and other online forums. In a way it reassures me when people are unable to pick holes in the evidence and have to resort to such logical fallacies. It shows the strength of the evidence.

You still haven't provided the bullet points asked for by Mick in keeping with the posting guidelines.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So you think that the OIG will try to attack the messenger rather than address the content of the letter?

No, I think it will simply cause them to take the content less seriously.

While I think you vastly overstate the significance of the omissions you mention, I would be interested to see what NIST say about them. Your choice of lawyer simply makes it less likely that will happen.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Thread title changed to reflect content.

And a bullet point summary would be appreciated.
The link ( http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf ) details the most pertinent omissions in the NIST WTC7 report. Specifically, beam stubs, stiffener plates and other errors in the report. The common thread here is that the errors/omissions all would prevent the kind of failure mechanism that NIST supposed in their collapse initiating event for the building.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
No, I think it will simply cause them to take the content less seriously.

While I think you vastly overstate the significance of the omissions you mention, I would be interested to see what NIST say about them. Your choice of lawyer simply makes it less likely that will happen.

In what way do you think they are overstated specifically?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In what way do you think they are overstated specifically?

The letter says "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. ", however I feel that at most it only invalidates a very particular narrative, and the general facts remain the same. This has been discussed before. So I only bring it up because it's likely how the recipients of the letter will feel. Your focus is too narrow for so broad a conclusion.

Anyway, what's the next course of action, assuming they don't respond?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
So you think that the OIG will try to attack the messenger rather than address the content of the letter? Personally I think that will not be an option for them although it is a tactic that I would expect people to get away with in blogs and other online forums. In a way it reassures me when people are unable to pick holes in the evidence and have to resort to such logical fallacies. It shows the strength of the evidence.
It's not a logical fallacy unless someone says 'because of this person's character and history, the information is false by default'.
It does not address the information, just that he is, as Mick says, 'an interesting chap.'
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
It's not a logical fallacy unless someone says 'because of this person's character and history, the information is false by default'.
It does not address the information, just that he is, as Mick says, 'an interesting chap.'
Yeah, I was referring to the OIG possibly trying to attack Dr Pepper rather than addressing the contents of the letter. In that sense 'shooting the messenger' would be an extension of an ad homenim type logical fallacy.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
I feel that at most it (the letter) only invalidates a very particular narrative
That particular narrative being NIST's collapse hypothesis.

and the general facts remain the same.
Of course they don't. If NIST got this wrong, and they did, they need to change that and give us an explanation that satisfies the scientific method.
Your focus is too narrow for so broad a conclusion.
Therefor so would NISTs be.

Anyway, what's the next course of action, assuming they don't respond?
If NIST is not prepared to amend their report, they should be held accountable for that in a court IMO. It is crucial that we find out what exactly caused the unprecedented collapse of this building. Not to do so jeopardizes public safety.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Uhm, so the lawyer threatens to take the 'technical narrative, graphics and DVD' to European engineers in Cambridge University and elsewhere unless NIST amends their report? And this would be embarrassing to NIST so they'd better do it or else?
Wouldn't it make more sense if the engineering dept of Cambridge University just produced their own FEA and publish the results? Nothing to stop them from doing this.

Furthermore, the problem facing AE911Truth is that they're not an impartial society of engineers, they're not a recognized professional body. They're a lobby group (Gerrycan and others remind us often) that wants 'a new investigation' into ALL the collapses, and features papers which allege that all the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition.

Nowhere in this letter does the [...] lawyer mention that.

If the ASCE sent a letter officially, it would carry some weight. This letter doesn't do much, it'll probably get mentioned in a meeting of technical staff, and they'll roll their eyes and say 'yeah, the same people that believe their were nanothermite rockets flying out of the towers, and that paint chips are exotic high explosives'.
Perhaps if AE911Truth were not saddled with a clown like Richard Gage or David Chandler, who are infamous by now and practically foam at the mouth with their zeal, they might get taken seriously.
What they need is to get a respected engineering department of a major university to back up their claims, if they're even going to have a snowball's chance in hell of getting considered seriously. But they haven't managed to do that, despite raising over $1,000,000!

Geez, that 3rd party study confirming their nanothermite theory would come in real handy right now. Too bad they didn't prioritize 0.1% of their income to pay for one. Dang!

I guess their tactic of blaming NIST for everything gives them some street cred. But they've never come up with a coherent set of theories and evidence for a credible alternative hypothesis. That's the problem. It's not NIST, it's AE911Truth and its careless endorsement of crazy ideas that's the problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Not at all my bag of onions. They are threatening the lawsuit. Let them bring it on. Pass the popcorn!
This is not a show for your entertainment AE. It is a potential court case re the filing of a false report pertaining to an attack that killed many of your fellow citizens and facilitated wars that killed many more. Your attitude says much.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
This is not a show for your entertainment AE. It is a potential court case re the filing of a false report pertaining to an attack that killed many of your fellow citizens and facilitated wars that killed many more. Your attitude says much.
I beg to differ. AE911Truth have been overselling their conspiracy claptrap for too many years already. I'd like to see them get their day in court, and be exposed for what they are. I would be entertained by it, as I do not respect the organization. After all, they're accusing innocent Americans of heinous crimes, based on a stubborn refusal to accept basic facts, and paranoid speculation. They denigrate any person or organization who doesn't sing from the conspiracy songsheet so deserve the same in return.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
This is not a show for your entertainment AE. It is a potential court case re the filing of a false report pertaining to an attack that killed many of your fellow citizens and facilitated wars that killed many more. Your attitude says much.
This also says much, in that we all seem to use this topic as a launching pad to 'say much' about our fellow citizens.
We all find it is justified in terms of whatever subjective view we hold, but is really counter-productive in that it becomes about characterising the moral bankruptcy of the opposition and soliloquising our moral theories on modern society or whatever.
The focus should not be on soap-boxing but on addressing the veracity of what is claimed, and seriously addressing the counter-claims.
(consider this my soap-boxing).

The term 'provably false' guarantees that it is only a matter of time before it is legally accepted. Is this term justified?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The topic of this thread is the letter in the OP, and its submission. Discussion should related directly to that.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
What's the legal basis of a court case?
NIST are in possession of information which they should take into account re the WTC7 report. They have failed to do so. Hopefully the OIG will compel them to do that. If not, I would like to see them in court for filing a false report
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
There are several interesting aspects to this effort.

First is that the thrust is to invalidate the NIST theory of girder walk of leading to a multiple floor collapse leading to column 79 buckling leading to collapse propagating westward inside the building, the collapse of both the East and West penthouses and then the rest of the building folding in and falling down. Do they accept that the suggested scenario is a plausible model? It is a MODEL based on assumed data and some actual data.

Second, have they demonstrated that stiffeners would prevent girder walk off. If so how so?

If the girder couldn't walk off could this be basis for dismissing of the NIST model?

Clearly at some early point column 79 ceased to perform. The issue is what are the possible explanations? AE911T claims 81 columns over 8 floors were destroyed in an instant. Wouldn't that mean that the column 79 area would not "lead" the collapse?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
NIST are in possession of information which they should take into account re the WTC7 report. They have failed to do so. Hopefully the OIG will compel them to do that. If not, I would like to see them in court for filing a false report

False? or with error(s)? Are you suggesting they were willfully attempting to deceive?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
False? or with error(s)? Are you suggesting they were willfully attempting to deceive?
I honestly don't know whether this would be a willful deception, or an honest mistake. What I can say is that all of the errors and omissions made the initiating event that NIST supposed look more credible. The beam stubs, the stiffener plates and all the other errors and omissions that they made allowed their conclusions to look more plausible. As soon as the structural drawings were made public, these were picked up on, and the fact that NIST had these drawings that contradicted the connection and elements around column 79 as per their report is something that needs to be remedied.
Whether this was a series of convenient honest mistakes, or a deliberate attempt to mislead makes no difference to the fact that their report is invalidated. After all, they are the very people that cite concerns relating to jeopardising public safety, so given the invalidation of their report, it is surely a matter pertinent to public safety that we find out what actually did initiate the collapse of WTC7 in order to prevent any repetition of this unprecedented building failure.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Gerry, have you considered getting some kind of petition to support this letter from people with appropriate qualifications in structural engineering? And some actual individual technical assessments? It seems a little plain right now - a bunch of anonymous claims.

If the claims stand on their own merits, then you should have no problem getting structural engineers to confirm them?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
There are several interesting aspects to this effort.
There certainly are, yes.

First is that the thrust is to invalidate the NIST theory of girder walk of leading to a multiple floor collapse leading to column 79 buckling leading to collapse propagating westward inside the building, the collapse of both the East and West penthouses and then the rest of the building folding in and falling down. Do they accept that the suggested scenario is a plausible model? It is a MODEL based on assumed data and some actual data.
NISTs analysis is based on an inaccurate representation of the structural drawings, for example drawing '9114' which clearly show stiffener plates on the girder. The analysis that we have done and the conclusions we have reached are based on the structural drawings for the building that NIST say they used.

Second, have they demonstrated that stiffeners would prevent girder walk off. If so how so?
Yes, we have demonstrated that clearly. The plates allow for greater transfer of load across the bottom flange of the girder. Given that the maximum expansion of the beams to the east of it is 5.5", and the seat plate is actually 12" and not 11" as stated by NIST, the improbable becomes the impossible, in terms of the ability of thermal expansion of the long span floor beams to puh the girder off it's seat.

If the girder couldn't walk off could this be basis for dismissing of the NIST model?
Yes. If NISTs supposed initiating event is not valid, then the cause of the buildings failure is not as they described it in the report.

Clearly at some early point column 79 ceased to perform. The issue is what are the possible explanations? AE911T claims 81 columns over 8 floors were destroyed in an instant. Wouldn't that mean that the column 79 area would not "lead" the collapse?
We are dealing with the initiating event here, and that has been invalidated. As puzzling as the admitted 108ft of freefall acceleration exhibited in the collapse is, we must deal with what caused the building to begin to collapse in order to understand the cause and learn more about how to prevent this type of failure recurring.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Gerry, have you considered getting some kind of petition to support this letter from people with appropriate qualifications in structural engineering? And some actual individual technical assessments? It seems a little plain right now - a bunch of anonymous claims.

If the claims stand on their own merits, then you should have no problem getting structural engineers to confirm them?

The contents have been studied by many types of highly qualified engineers, including structural engineers. If and when it is appropriate there would be a need to call people qualified to do so, to give evidence as expert witnesses. However, I am not about to start naming names here. I have had personal contact with more than half a dozen such people who have independently validated the content of this letter, and I am not aware of any SEs who have disputed the findings and conclusions that we have reached. If you can find any, I would be more than happy to listen to what they have to say.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
There certainly are, yes.


NISTs analysis is based on an inaccurate representation of the structural drawings, for example drawing '9114' which clearly show stiffener plates on the girder. The analysis that we have done and the conclusions we have reached are based on the structural drawings for the building that NIST say they used.


Yes, we have demonstrated that clearly. The plates allow for greater transfer of load across the bottom flange of the girder. Given that the maximum expansion of the beams to the east of it is 5.5", and the seat plate is actually 12" and not 11" as stated by NIST, the improbable becomes the impossible, in terms of the ability of thermal expansion of the long span floor beams to puh the girder off it's seat.


Yes. If NISTs supposed initiating event is not valid, then the cause of the buildings failure is not as they described it in the report.


We are dealing with the initiating event here, and that has been invalidated. As puzzling as the admitted 108ft of freefall acceleration exhibited in the collapse is, we must deal with what caused the building to begin to collapse in order to understand the cause and learn more about how to prevent this type of failure recurring.

I have offered a theory.. a model of what could have happened. I call it TTF transfer truss failure and it is supported by the attached graphic. Of course TTF accounts for all known movements and witness testimony. But like the NIST models using assumptions. I don't think ANYONE has reported what was going in inside this region at any point during the day... ie the mech floors and the con ed substation I don't think there are photos of the area either.
 

Attachments

  • WTC 7 TTF r5.pdf
    162 KB · Views: 542
  • WTC 7 sk TTF.pdf
    13.3 KB · Views: 377
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
There certainly are, yes.

Yes, we have demonstrated that clearly. The plates allow for greater transfer of load across the bottom flange of the girder. Given that the maximum expansion of the beams to the east of it is 5.5", and the seat plate is actually 12" and not 11" as stated by NIST, the improbable becomes the impossible, in terms of the ability of thermal expansion of the long span floor beams to puh the girder off it's seat..

Geez.. I don't want to defend NIST's column 79 scenario, but there were complex and multiple forces which could have pushed caused the girder to fail. Uneven heating and expansion causing twisting. I don't understand why a stiffened web wouldn't walk off...or a thicker web for that matter. Wasn't the idea that it was pushed by expanding beams framed into it?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Geez.. I don't want to defend NIST's column 79 scenario, but there were complex and multiple forces which could have pushed caused the girder to fail. Uneven heating and expansion causing twisting. I don't understand why a stiffened web wouldn't walk off...or a thicker web for that matter. Wasn't the idea that it was pushed by expanding beams framed into it?

The idea is that in NIST's models, the connection was deemed or have failed if the girder just walked half way off (6"), as the flange would fail. Gerry's contention is that the stiffener would make the flange not fail, so the walk off fail distance would be much more (9"+). I think it's described in the letter linked in the OP.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The idea is that in NIST's models, the connection was deemed or have failed if the girder just walked half way off (6"), as the flange would fail. Gerry's contention is that the stiffener would make the flange not fail, so the walk off fail distance would be much more (9"+). I think it's described in the letter linked in the OP.

web stiffeners prevent the flange from failing. Please explain...
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Geez.. I don't want to defend NIST's column 79 scenario
Wise move, neither would I lol.
but there were complex and multiple forces which could have pushed caused the girder to fail. Uneven heating and expansion causing twisting.
Well, NIST also omitted beam stubs to the North of column 79 and East of column 44. These would prevent the type of twisting you are alluding to.
I don't understand why a stiffened web wouldn't walk off...or a thicker web for that matter. Wasn't the idea that it was pushed by expanding beams framed into it?
Ok, i see what you are getting at. The maximum expansion would be 5.5". The seat plate is 12", so the girder web would still be over the seat plate. The finite element analysis shows that even at up to 8.75 inches movement, the girder would remain supported by the seat plate. NIST stated that above 600C the beams would stop expanding and begin to sag, having lost the tensile strength required to push the girder.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Wise move, neither would I lol.

Well, NIST also omitted beam stubs to the North of column 79 and East of column 44. These would prevent the type of twisting you are alluding to.

Ok, i see what you are getting at. The maximum expansion would be 5.5". The seat plate is 12", so the girder web would still be over the seat plate. The finite element analysis shows that even at up to 8.75 inches movement, the girder would remain supported by the seat plate. NIST stated that above 600C the beams would stop expanding and begin to sag, having lost the tensile strength required to push the girder.

Maybe and maybe not. I can't do the match but I would not be confident that a girder which lost half it bearing area would not do some weird things... walking might not be one of them. I don't know the engineering here and I find the entire column 79 thing bizarre and so TTF makes more sense. I am confounded why NIST didn't propose TTF or something similar? The only reason I can think is that the accelerant would not be files and furniture but diesel. And that would lead to a discussion of why the diesel was there and who designed the system and chose to place this next to the transfer trusses... And this is opening up a can of worms.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
The idea is that in NIST's models, the connection was deemed or have failed if the girder just walked half way off (6")
Actually 5.5" as per NISTs original estimate, where they failed to read correctly from the bill of materials that the seat plate was actually 1ft. Still, i suppose they did kind of address this, even though this dug a bigger hole for their story.
Fair comment though.
 

Related Articles

Top