NIST Resists calls for further Investigation

[Sinclair]

NIST Resists calls for further Investigation into WTC Collapse Mechanism

Please see the attached article from the ‘New Civil Engineer’ Magazine of 6th October 2005 which details that NIST are resisting calls from leading structural & fire engineers for NIST to validate their own analysis into the WTC collapse mechanisms.

NIST stated that they …”did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation…”

Methinks that would be because it would make the NIST Theory not stand up ……………

[ian neal]

This engineering paper just out from Brigham Young University

Von: ERICHUF@aol.com [mailto:ERICHUF@aol.com]
Gesendet: Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:53 PM
An: afp_europe@yahoo.com
Cc: jwalter@reopen911.org; wroudy@yahoo.com
Betreff: Physics professor says WTC demolished with explosives

Christopher, Willie, and Jimmy,

This is the best thing yet. You have to check this out. A physics professor is publishing an article

"In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives.."

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

His paper is here:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

The criminals may not be able to suppress the information any longer.

His phone and other info:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/bergeson/physics1/atomic/jones_cv.h tm

The reporter who wrote the story: Elaine Jarvik

Work: 801-236-6015 E-mail: jarvik@desnews.com

A few letters of support will be helpful I expect

[ian neal]

Hi Sinclair. The NCE link to attached document seems not to work. Maybe you could cut and paste? More from the NCE

World Trade Center NIST report

Fire protection demands threaten to stifle design innovation

Engineers fear their efforts to produce innovative tall building designs will be stifled following publication of last week’s comprehensive report into the World Trade Center tower collapses in 2001.

In Britain, structural engineers face greater pressure to justify cutting edge tall building designs.

And in the US, recommendations in last week’s NIST report on the 9/11 attacks are also expected to stop in their tracks, efforts to push the boundaries of tall building design.

The NIST report makes 30 recommendations, many relating to fire protection improvements.

One calls for US-wide adoption of the “structural frame” approach to fire resistance ratings, where all structural members must carry the same fire rating. This is expected to make American designs more conservative.

“America lags behind the UK in terms of what we are doing to reduce fire protection and any attempt to push that boundary will be met with some resistance,” said Yolles director of structures Richard Thiemann. Yolles works on both sides of the Atlantic."

“It does mean you’re going to get some very over-engineered buildings which is a price people are willing to pay for perceived improvements in safety.”

In Europe, engineers believe the effect of the recommendations will be less severe but will still put pressure on engineers to raise standards.

“We are good at designing down fire protection. You can be taking out 50% of fire protection but still maintain building integrity. The savings can be quite significant,” said Thiemann.

“But you can’t be seen to be doing anything less than the top level of care. Clients and tenants will be scrutinising decisions more carefully. So the standard of fire engineering will have to improve. “It will simply have to become a more technical, skilled art,” he said.

Buro Happold partner Mick Green agreed. “With the right applications and the right research, we can design buildings that can withstand fire,” he said.

Jacobs Babtie director Gordon Masterton agreed that the report will increase the importance of fire safety engineering.

“Getting architects and engineers to understand fire safety engineering is the most important thing,” he said.


Hat truss theory adds to WTC collapse controversy

Controversy still surrounds the exact collapse mechanism of the Twin Towers, despite three years of detailed investigation by the National Institute for Science &Technology (NIST) team.

Some engineers believe the collapse was influenced by factors other than the fires caused by buring aviation fuel which weakened vital structural steel elements.

And they have accused NIST of repeatedly changing its explanation of the collapse mechanism.

“In this latest version, the ‘hat trusses’ on top of the towers play a crucial role in the redistribution of stresses after the impact,” one leading US structural engineer told NCE in New York. “In earlier versions they are hardly mentioned.” (NCE 21 October 2004).


The trusses were originally designed to carry loads from TV towers on the roofs – but only WTC 1 ever had such a tower. NIST now believes the trusses helped the upper storeys of the towers to stand up after the aircraft impacts.

Consultant Arup has frequently criticised NIST’s analysis of the collapse mechanism.

Last week Arup went on the attack again. In a statement, Arup associate Dr Barbara Lane said: “We consider thermal expansion in fire to be a leading factor in a collapse.

“This does not seem to have been addressed in NIST’s recommendations, but we hope it will become part of the ongoing discussions going forward.”

Work continues on WTC7 collapse probe

Analysis of the baffling collapse of the 47 storey WTC7 tower was not included in the “final” report into the collapse of the World Trade Center towers published last week.

The original brief given to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by the National Construction Safety Team Act in October 2002 included determining why and how all three towers came down. But while all investigations to date have agreed on the prime causes of the Twin Towers collapse, the cause of the WTC7 failure is still far from clear.

Blazing debris from the collapsing twin towers ignited fires throughout WTC7. It burned for seven hours before collapsing catastrophically.

NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder said last week that it was hoped the first draft report on WTC7 would be out “before the end of the year”. He admitted that NIST still had a lot of work to do to clarify the exact mechanism of the collapse, but said the team was still convinced that a leaking standby generator fuel pipe was the major factor in the disaster (NCE 9 May 2002)

UK report anticipated NIST calls

Virtually all conclusions in NIST’s official report into the collapse of the World Trade Center towers were reached in the UK three years ago, engineers said this week.

A major report Safety in tall buildings was published in July 2002, just 10 months after the towers collapsed (NCE 11 July 2002) by an Institution of Structural Engineers-led panel which included ICE senior vice president and Jacobs Babtie director Gordon Masterton.

Its recommendations are similar to those published by NIST. These included calls for buildings to be designed to survive complete burn out, include “robust, resilient and durable passive fire protection” and allow large-scale evacuation. It also called for regular independent audits of fire protection systems.

“The interesting thing is that the more you read the more it looks similar to what we did in the UK after 9/11,” said Masterton.

“Of the 30 recommendations 24 are identical messages to those contained in our report,” he said.

“It made me quite proud that what we produced in eight months at no cost contains recommendations so similar to a $16M (£8.8M) investigation that has taken four years to come to its conclusions.”

Developers fear more red tape

Developers fear recommendations arising from investigations into the World Trade Center collapses could force them to comply with an extra tier of regulations.

The US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) report highlights actions building owners should take to prevent similar collapses.

If the NIST report is acted on, the government could impose extra red tape on building owners, developers fear.

NIST urges immediate consideration of:
retrofitting structures with improved fire protection

upgrading escape systems

acquire independent safety certification

setting up off site storage rooms for documents relating to the building’s design.

British Property Federation regeneration and development director Faraz Baber said extra costs would be inevitable if the guidelines were followed.

“Regulations are already in place. To create a new layer doesn’t seem to be necessary. If there are rogue elements that don’t comply with existing regulations then they aren’t going to comply with a new tier of regulations either.”

But he added: “One recommendation which could be sensibly considered is keeping records off site, for insurance purposes if nothing else.”

[Pikey]

Thanks for that comrades its a great piece of research.

I note from the profile of this American professor, Steven Jones that he attended Stanford University, which is a major Illuminati centre of education.

I have e mailed the following including the research paper as a link to the Deputy editor, Tom Broughton (tel: 029-7560-4157) of the "Building" weekly magazine . Their office base is Lugate Hse, 245 Blackfriars Rd London; website: www.building.co.uk

The Building magazine is the no. 1 publication read by those employed in the UK Construction industry (contractors and design professionals)

[Sinclair]

Ian,

Strange why the link isn't working, any ideas why that is?

Here is a copy of the article from ‘New Civil Engineer’ (NCE) magazine, is a magazine for construction professionals & members of the UK Institution of Civil Engineers (established 1818 ), (www.ice.org.uk). Publication date 6th October 2005. (Magazine website www.nceplus.co.uk)

WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation

[GeorgeWashington]

Hey gang,

I tried to find a directory of NCE folks (thinking I could put our Professor Jones in touch with the folks at NCE). When I went to the directory page -- http://www.nceplus.co.uk/login/?ReqRes=TPCY1P4U2NNNG64Q6E7URW4RVMDWLSY 2K1DZ7KS4XA6HBJG0&ReqType=ZH -- I got the same old log in page (I signed up yesterday, but never received an email confirmation, so am in purgatory).

Can someone please post the directory, with contact info, etc?

Thanks!

George
GeorgeWashington.blogspot.com

[GeorgeWashington]

On a related note, since I am new to this board, are any of you good folks engineers or architects?

Do you know any UK engineers or architects open to 9-11 truth?

Thanks!

George
GeorgeWashington.blogspot.com

[Andrew Johnson]

Hi GW

Welcome "aboard". Sinclair is a Structural Engineer, and Ian Neal is an Engineer too.

I have a background in Software Engineering, although am involved in education as much as anything else these days.

[GeorgeWashington]

I'm not a scientist (although studied science at University).

But what does everyone think of this argument:

(1) The steel cores of the Twin Towers were sunk deep into the bedrock.

(2) The core columns of the towers were much thicker at the base than at the top.

(3) Videos of the collapses show that the bases of the Towers remained more or less intact until the demolition wave or collapse zone actually reached the bases

(4) NIST and FEMA theorize that, variously, either that "tall freestanding portions of the
exterior wall and possibly central core columns" collapsed because of their lack of lateral support (floors held up the columns) or the trusses pulled in the perimeter walls, "column instability", and "structural deterioration" leading to "global collapse"

(5) Aren't both theories refuted by the videos which show that the base of the towers were
relatively stable until the collapse zones actually reached them?

(6) If refuted, wouldn't this:

(1) poke a big hole in FEMA and NIST's entire models or at least

(2) show that the core columns at their bases should have provided tremendous resistance (since sunk deep in bedrock and – regardless of what else was going on – relatively stable up until the collapse zones reached them) -- thus (1) halting the collapse towards the bottom parts of the buildings or at least (2) slowing the collapse downward from free-fall speed?

[Sinclair]

GeorgeWashington,

NCEplus is the weekly magazine for the UK Institution of Civil Engineers.

It is better that contact be made directly with the Institution themselves. The website is at www.ice.org.uk, with the contact details at
http://www.ice.org.uk/contact/index.asp

There is also the UK Institution of Structural Engineers at http://www.istructe.org.uk

A quick search of Google has provided the following contact details of the academics referenced in the NCE article:

Colin Bailey - University of Manchester Professor of structural engineering http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/staff/academic/professors/bai leyc/
Roger Plank - University of Sheffield professor http://www.shef.ac.uk/civil/staff/academic/iwb.html

[roscoe]

Here's the NIST press conference on video.

rtsp://realod.talkpoint.com/thom001/13858/13858_300k.rm

Look at the question at 1hr 22minutes into the video. I was not aware of the number of people who have been sacked for daring to question this investigation.

I will comment on this later.

[GeorgeWashington]

I stumbled upon this video:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/video-of-construction-of- world-trade.html

I will leave it to the engineers and scientists to see if this provides valuable info.

[who murdered di ?]

I cant get a succesfull link to the url you highlighted rescoe being rtsp://realod.talkpoint.com/thom001/13858/13858_300k.rm any other ways of getting the link succesfully ?

[GeorgeWashington]

I'm helping do a little footwork for physics professor Dr. Jones.

I've heard it said that firefighers & first responders actually witnessed liquid metal in the debris of the Twin Towers. (I know about Christopher Bollyn's alleged interview with Mark Loixeaux of Controlled Demo Inc, but this ins't very interesting).

Can anyone help with links to actual eyewitness statements?

Thanks!

George
GeorgeWashington.blogspot.com

[ian neal]

Hi George

This is a pretty good list

As far as fire engineering 'experts' in this country try this email list and this group

As far as getting this in the engineering press you are most likely to succeed via the NCE

Antony Oliver
The editor
NCE
151 Rosebery Aveune
London EC1R 4GB
nceedit@construct.emap.com

The NCE has carried several letters from ARUP fire engineering 'experts' who identify the need for further research and unanswered questions especially around WTC 7

The current ICE president and ex Jacobs Babtie director Gordon Masterton was involved in an investigation of the collapse and MAY be approachable. From the NCE ...(He) agreed that the report will increase the importance of fire safety engineering.
“Getting architects and engineers to understand fire safety engineering is the most important thing,” he said.

I will go to the ICE library and check it out.

Other possible useful links to UK 'experts' on fire engineering

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Popular mechanics 'experts'

Good luck and keep us posted

[GeorgeWashington]

911Proof is actually my site

[GeorgeWashington]

If NIST folks have in fact been axed, they might have info for us?

Sinclair (or another engineer/scientist), do you want to contact them and see if they'll help?

[GeorgeWashington]

2 other questions.

First, I have found 3d massing drawings showing that the Twin Towers each had 3 sections. The sections, I've heard from other sources, are "sky lobbies" which divide the 3 distrinct elevator banks.

Does anyone know whether the sky lobbies were reinforced?

Second, does anyone know how to read blueprints?

[GeorgeWashington]

I found a blueprint for the first floor of the Twin Towers:

http://911proof.com/resources/WTC++01.BMP (whole thing -- bitmap, so you can zoom in)

http://911proof.com/resources/WTC++02.BMP (close up)

Does this show anything interesting (I can't read plans!)

If it does, I'll tell you where I got it, and how (maybe) to get a couple of more plans.

George.

[Pikey]

Hi GW,

Thanks for that!

If you can get a set of the blueprints of the "as built" structure that would be interesting for further research and investigation. I wonder if the American science academic Steven E Jones of Brigham Young University who produced his report on the collapse of the towers concluding they were brought down by planted explosives has a set?

I had a look at the blueprint you have supplied and its not clear on my display. Ideally need to print out the drawings on an A1 size drawing to scrutinise the detail.

The "Loose Change" dvd gives an excellent simple visual in sight into the basic structural construction technology of the towers.

[GeorgeWashington]

Pikey, thanks. The version of the plans for the first floor i posted may be zoomed in on, hope that makes them clearer.

I know nothing of architecture, so didn't even realize that there is an "as built" set in addition to initial blueprints.

I don't think Jones has them, and any tips on how to get an as is set would be greatly appreciated. Same for WTC7.

[Pikey]

Construction professionals, Ian Neal and Sinclair how about you sending in a response to my published 911 article in the Building magazine (see thread News: Breakthrough in Press Building 2-12-05 for contact details)

Other construction professionals:- Member no 31 is an architect and a very creative 911 truth campaigner indeed!

[GeorgeWashington]

By the way, here's a free tool to zoom in on the images:

http://imagezoom.yellowgorilla.net/

It is a Firefox extension, for those using a Mozilla browser.

[Sinclair]

Pikey,

I have sent an e-mail letter (reproduced below) to the editor of Building Magazine.

I think that the letter, if published at all, will be heavily edited.

I tried to focus on the issues that would be of concern to their readers, i.e. the fact that the NIST investigations have not resulted, as of yet, to any change/updating of any building codes etc. I think that to suggest straight off that explosives were used risks the letter being binned.

The links to the US House of Representatives on the WTC hearing website allows any reporter to investigate & carry out their own research any as they affect their readers. I urge anyone hear to look at that website & see the reports I referenced for themselves.

I also wrote to the NCE magazine, with a similar letter.

Can you let me know if their is anything published in Building Magazine.

I will keep a look out in NCE Magazine, which I receive a copy of each week.

Sinclair

[ian neal]

Hi Pikey and Sinclair

Did you see the links I posted here? They appear to be the principle UK 'experts' in fire engineering

[Pikey]

Hi Sinkey,

Great letter you have sent in to the Building magazine, hopefully there will be others, thanks for your support!

I have read much of the stuff you have posted on this website........top quality 911 truthseeking comrade!

I will of course let you know if it gets published. If it does not I would suggest that you do what I did and do a follow up call and ask either the Assistant editor, Tom (he has been given all the websites and seems to be a decent guy) or the editor Denise and ask why it has not been published It worked for me although as you can see my submission was somewhat butchered!

Despite that the opening is now there for others to make further in roads.

As always, positive Pikey .......happy 911 truth campaign creating folks!!

[GeorgeWashington]

Sinclair, my email is message@email.com I'd love to chat with you very briefly about some structural issues concerning the Twin Towers.

[Sinclair]

George W.

Anything you want to discuss, just PM me here.

Sinclair

[GeorgeWashington]

Professor Jones is going to quote the 6th October 2005 article Sinclar posted. Anyone know the page number?

[ian neal]

Hi George

I will try and find out

I wanted to flag up the comments of Sue Lamont of Arup Fire Engineering in the Feb 17 2005 edition of NCE. The issue deals with the Madrid Torre Windsor fire. In an interview, Valuable lessons can come from blaze with Dave Parker, NCE on page 6, Sue Lamont expresses doubts over assumptions made by NIST when modelling the collapse mechanism.

".....

Lamont is due to speak at NCE's Fire Engineering Conference in London on 12 April and will challenge the finite element analysis (FEA) method used in the official report to model the collapse of the World Trade Center.

The National Institute for Science and Technology's (NIST) final 10 000 page report and recommendations has still not been published. Original publication date of a draft for comment was October last year; latest rumours suggest it could be delayed even as far as the summer.

An interim report detailing NIST's conclusions on the collapse mechanisms for both towers was published in December last year (NCE21 December 2004).

" NIST's FEA model does not include a thermomechanical analysis. This models the forces in the structure generated by the thermal expansion of the steel" says Lamont.

"Instead, the NIST team seems to have made assumptions on what forces would be involved. We think this has produced an inaccurate collapse scenario."

A spokesman for NIST defended its FEA model, saying that NIST "believes the physics of the FEA model are correct and the significant phenomena relevent to determining the probable collapse sequence have been adequately captured."

He adds: "NIST is committed to putting accuracy, quality and completeness ahead of schedule, taking whatever time is required to do the job right."

Dave Parker"

Ms Lamont no longer works for ARUP, but I wrote to ARUP Fire Dept

Arup,
13 Fitzroy St,
London W1T 4B

12 December 2005

FAO Fire Engineering Dept

Anomalies in the collapse of the WTC towers

I’m an engineer, who has followed with interest the debate and various hypotheses regarding the WTC tower collapses. I have also studied in some detail the wider investigation into the events of September 11. This study has led me to support the numerous calls for a further independent investigation, so much so that I have been instrumental in the establishment of this British network and campaign. Our home page links to some of the evidence and testimonies that directly challenges the ‘9/11 Commission’ report, including that of Michael Meacher MP.

With regard to the collapse of the WTC towers, I was interested to note the doubts ARUP staff voiced in the 17 February 2005 edition of the NCE magazine regarding NIST analysis of the collapse mechanism, where Sue Lamont states, “We think this (the NIST’s Finite Element Analysis) has produced an inaccurate collapse scenario”

There are numerous questions that have been raised by some from within the fire and structural engineering communities as well as other witnesses to the events that directly challenges the official explanations. I hope you are familiar with this evidence. In case you are not may I humbly recommend the following engineering paper (2) as an introduction to this evidence. I am happy to send further presentations of the evidence upon request.

I would welcome the opportunity to meet with your department, to explore your understanding of the evidence, whether either individually or as a department you share my concerns and, if you do share my concerns, whether you are able to offer a statement of support or further advice. I will treat any response in confidence.

Thank you

Yours sincerely

Ian Neal

To which I received this minimalist reply

Ian

Thank you for your enquiry

I will pass on to those interested within Arup

However, we do not make private briefing statements/off the record remarks

Where we have a public view we make this via conferences or other forums such a journals in the public domain where the view can be debated

Thanks. Tony

_____________________________
Tony Lovell, BEng(Hons) CEng MIFireE
Associate Director

Hope this helps, Ian