|Letter from Ron Brookman|
|News - News Releases By AE911Truth|
|Wednesday, 17 February 2010 00:00|
February 17, 2010
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
I would like to express my hearty congratulations on your milestone of 1,000 A/E signatures, and I wish you continued success throughout the year! I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to all of your dedicated volunteers and supporters, and especially to your distinguished guests Dr. Griffin and Dr. Jones.
There is nothing radical or extreme about asking questions, so I recently sent the enclosed survey to 100 licensed structural and civil engineers. The recipients were selected randomly in order to gauge the general awareness and consensus of licensed engineers regarding the most likely cause of collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. As you know the cause of collapse has been attributed – by the NIST – to fires fueled by ordinary building contents on several floors. According to the final reports these uncontrolled fired led to local connection and floor-framing failures, column buckling and progressive collapse. A complete collapse resulting from office fires was historically unprecedented as well as extremely unlikely, and I expected most structural engineers to open their eyes and take notice. It appears I was mistaken.
I do not anticipate receiving any more responses after four weeks, and the (lack of) results may interest you. Only five out of 98 engineers responded, and only one was familiar with any documentation of the collapse. That person responded anonymously and in full agreement with the NIST reports' conclusions. I was glad to see at least one person had some familiarity with the collapse and was willing to state their opinion. One other person responded with the opposite opinion, but he was unfamiliar with the references. I consider the effort a success if even one recipient reviews the documentation carefully and forms an opinion independently.
I find it astonishing that so few engineers are willing to answer a few yes-or-no questions about their own experience and opinion regarding the nature of this collapse. The majority response (four out of five) implies that most structural engineers are uninformed about one of the most significant "structural failures" of modern times and the extensive research that has been done by FEMA, NIST and others since 2001. The nearly unanimous lack of response (93 out of 98) implies that most engineers are not even interested in discussing the structural details of an historical event – 9/11 – that has triggered a transformation in many aspects of our daily lives. How can this be?
Up to and including 2001 I recall a steady stream of opinions from leaders of engineering organizations about how structural engineers needed to bolster their image and educate the public about their important role in society as guardians of public safety. Engineers and professors appeared soon after 9/11 attempting to explain the destruction in rational terms of impact damage, thermal damage, column buckling and progressive collapse even before the fires cooled and the debris was examined. Where are these experts now? None are seeking attention – not even the research engineers who claim to have solved the mystery of WTC 7 after many years of data collection, computer analyses and report preparation all of which failed to follow the Basic Methodology of NFPA 921 (Guide to Fire and Explosion Investigations, 2001 Edition) Chapter 2.
The final NIST reports were never subjected to an independent review before publication, and the authors ignored many public comments submitted in response to their draft reports. The NIST FOIA Officer recently informed me that the collapse-initiation model results are being withheld from the public because the NIST Director has "determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety." The National Construction Safety Team Act of 2002 (H.R. 4687) requires NIST to issue a public report including an analysis of the likely technical cause of collapse, and I cannot imagine how disclosure of structural calculations for a building that no longer exists could possibly jeopardize public safety. Can you?
A representative of NIST Media Relations has said that NIST stands behind its reports. The obvious question is: does anyone else stand behind the NIST reports? Is the cast closed because NIST says so in its final report? Are we going to look forward – not back – because President Obama says so for political expediency? Are we going to turn this page of history before reading and understanding it, or should we pretend it never happened? I say no, but so far the vast majority of engineers are silent regardless of their opinion.
We know there are thousands of well-informed citizens worldwide including architects, engineers and scientists of every discipline that do not accept the NIST conclusions regarding the likely cause of collapse of WTC 7, and they do so with excellent reasons. So far there are few who will endorse the NIST reports other than those who created them. Many questions remain, but one that puzzles me the most is: why are so many thoughtful people with technical training reluctant to reveal their opinion if there is nothing to hide from the public? As you have demonstrated in the last two years, a high percentage of alert and open-minded individuals who spend time studying the facts agree. Shocking? Yes, but there is nothing radical or extreme about the truth.
Ronald H. Brookman, SE