Questioning 9/11: Seven problems with Building 7

Dwain Deets

North County Times, 6/24/2010, http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/letters/article_a89d7d77-3297-58a5-b9f3-d10a28d14769.html

1. No plane struck the 47-story World Trade Center skyscraper (Building 7).

2. No evidence of fires in Building 7 for the first 100 minutes after being struck by debris from Tower 1. (Yet fire from the debris is the official explanation for building collapse.)

3. Sudden free-fall drop of eight stories is finally officially acknowledged. Yet the National Institute of Science and Technology's lead investigator explained months earlier that free fall could not have occurred because that would have meant there would have been no structural components below.

4. No mainstream media covered the building collapse other than that first day, when Dan Rather said on network TV, "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures that we've all seen too much ... when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down."

5. No mention of Building 7 in the 9/11 Commission Report.

6. The New York Times characterized as "perhaps the deepest mystery in the investigation," a FEMA-report appendix about a steel specimen recovered from Building 7, rather like Swiss cheese, a product of extraordinarily high temperatures.

7. No mention in the NIST Building 7 Final Report of this mysterious steel specimen.

Isn't it time for a real investigation?

Dwain Deets

Encinitas

Protecting the public from information

Dwain Deets

North County Times, 8/3/2010, http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/letters/article_c765f5c3-3822-5a36-9a7a-80ecd5cb4b33.html

We have a federal agency showing disdain for the Freedom of Information Act. Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Director of National Institute for Standards and Technology, denied a request from structural engineer Ronald Brookman, who sought detailed structural analysis information gathered by NIST when they determined the cause of the World Trade Center Building 7 collapse. Gallagher's stated reason for denial was that releasing it "might jeopardize public safety."

What might jeopardize public safety is not allowing professionals in the building industry such as Mr. Brookman to independently study the NIST analysis of the highly anomalous building failure. A 47-story high-rise suddenly collapses straight down into its own footprint — highly anomalous.

President Obama embraced transparency and openness in government on Day One of his new administration. Gallagher issued this determination on July 9, 2009, more than five months later — the exact opposite of openness in government. What is the public to make of this?

And where is our Congress? Not one member of Congress has raised a single word of concern. Does Congress no longer have oversight responsibility? Are you OK with the authorities thumbing their noses at you?

Dwain Deets

Encinitas

Can more than 1,000 architects and engineers be wrong?

Dwain Deets

North County Times, 4/6/2010, http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/letters/article_893b5e84-4a8d-5383-82f7-3d3714c03756.html

The Freedom of Information Act used to be key to transparency in government. Not any more — at least, not if you ask about Building 7, a 47-story World Trade Center skyscraper that came crashing down on Sept. 11.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology investigated the collapse of Building 7 and issued their final report. They took a very unusual approach. Rather than examining remnants from the destroyed building, they developed a computer model that they claimed represented the building's characteristics. They theorized what might have been the cause for the collapse, then ran their computer model and claimed it represented what had actually happened. NIST states office fires alone led to the collapse of the building.

Now, more than 1,000 architects and engineers are asking for a new investigation. They say this defies the laws of physics. They ask for information on the computer model. Was it an accurate representation of the building itself?

Attempts to use FOIA to get information on the model have been futile. NIST refuses to provide critical information, saying, "release of the information may endanger public safety."

What? Endanger public safety? FOIA requests shouldn't be refused for such outlandish reasons.

Dwain Deets

Encinitas

Public safety paradox

http://www.seaonc.org/pdfs/SEAONC_September_2010.pdf

September 2010

Dear Editor:

The complete collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) was highly anomalous—that's why it is critical for building design and construction professionals to understand it. Freedom of Information Act requests for structural-analysis data have been denied because the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Director determined that release of the data might jeopardize public safety. I asked the Director:

How, in the Director's judgment, is the release of calculations and analysis results—developed at the taxpayers' expense for a building that no longer exists—a threat to public safety?

His response was:

The decision to withhold the data was based on the fact that the capabilities of the WTC 7 collapse initiation and global collapse models are unprecedented, in that they provide validated models that can predict collapse of typical tall buildings. If released, these models would provide a powerful tool to groups and individuals interested in simulating building collapses and devising ways to destroy buildings.

This response from NIST is an insult to building design and construction professionals who are committed to ensuring public safety with high-quality construction. As a structural engineer I have a professional interest in understanding the collapse, and it has nothing to do with ''devising ways to destroy buildings." If the WTC 7 models actually predict the complete collapse of typical tall buildings subjected to office fires, then withholding this information is not in the interest of public safety.

Independent verification is an integral part of science, so I strongly encourage the NIST Director to reconsider his decision to withhold analysis data. Only independent verification will enable these complex models to be validated.

Sincerely,

Ronald H. Brookman, SE