4
3
2
None of these factors seemed to concern NIST’s researchers as they moved toward their 2008 deadline on the WTC 7 report. And they had been warned about their research methodology. One architect tracking their progress up to late 2007 had warned they were performing substandard and biased work that would negate conclusions. Left unsaid was that such flaws would also harm the Institute’s reputation as a credible source by Congress and subsequent Administrations. [43]
The warning may have explained the low-profile of the report’s release in August 2008. It was immediately met by withering criticism about those methods and credibility from 16 national and international experts in structural engineering, architecture, physics, and chemistry. Thousands more probably would have joined them had NIST permitted more than a three-week review of the 1,000-page document and demanding $19,000 for photographic evidence of WTC 7. That such behavior smelled of “cover-up science” was indicated by emails between two members of that group:
NIST employs numerous tactics to distance their research and themselves from public scrutiny while giving the semblance of actual interaction with the public. NIST has never allowed scientists, engineers, architects to directly question them on camera, allowing only time-limited Web casts (advertised only a day in advance) during which they will deal with technical questions submitted by email only if they have time or feel like answering them.
They open themselves up a little more to career reporters from the mainstream media, but largely these reporters were selected by their media companies—perhaps in part because they would not ask tough questions. (This certainly was the pattern of behavior exhibited at the August 21, 2008 press conference coinciding with NIST’s release of their report on Building 7.)
NIST publishes extremely long documents that virtually nobody would bother absorbing (1,000 pages for their WTC 7 report). NIST makes the false promise that it would discuss these matters once the report has been released, but NIST has already denied me a chance to interview them. [44]
They were also scored on already known and obvious omissions (foreknowledge of collapse, silent demolition compounds such as thermate)
However, the major attack was on their sole reliance on computer tests that were rigged to imitate “the highest temperatures [of fires] and the most amount of structural damage” and trying to hide that fact. The last straw was NIST’s refusal to provide peers with the models and data. The first rule in any scientific or technological project is that experiments must be replicable anywhere in the world to be accepted as credible [45]
A separate and equally scathing verdict from a chemist encapsulated the objections:
The 9/11 Commission told us that the attacks on September 11th succeeded ultimately because of a “failure of imagination.” NIST will never be accused of that kind of failure, as its new WTC 7 report is nothing but imaginary tripe.
This new story contradicts the previous major claims by NIST, ignores the most important of the existing evidence, produces no scientific test results to support itself, and is so obviously false on its face that not even a fictional character from another planet would believe it.
Fires that could only last 2 to 30 minutes lasted 4 hours (what was burning?). Imaginary temperatures that, according to NIST would have easily weakened the same steel in the towers, left beams fully rigid so that they could push one girder a full 2.2 inches, somehow breaking numerous bolts and studs in unison, as well as buckling the girder, before the beams themselves were affected in any way. Suddenly, this one-girder failure caused numerous floors to collapse, one hair-trigger “switch” column to buckle, and the whole building to fall in a total of 8 seconds. [46]
It was plain to outside peers that NIST once again had fitted results around White House policy concerning 9/11. A major overhaul of the entire study was strongly recommended before publication. Compliance is unlikely because that would mean scrapping the report.
In short, any accurate, objective, and definitive investigation about the collapses will require a truly independent investigation by other experts in science and technology who will be far removed from the influence of FEMA, NIST—and the White House.
New Probe Is Demanded
A new investigation about the collapse causes is not only needed, but wanted by a growing national and international chorus of bellicose peers as well as public figures all demanding a new one.
NIST’s chief of Fire Science Division, Jamers Quintiere, Ph.D., resigned over the research quality for the 2005 report and joined 1,550 peers calling for a second “real” investigation. They ranged from the military, intelligence agencies and pilots to scientists, engineers, architects, scholars as well as first-responders and 9/11 victims’ families. Some 280 architects and engineers from that group and more than 2,000 affiliates and university majors also are now petitioning Congress for a scientific and technical investigation about the collapses. [47]
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
