Good Job on Your 9/11 Reports NIST!

 A Petition in Support of NIST’s 9/11 Analysis of the World Trade Center Destruction

This petition is open to 1) any architect or engineer licensed to practice, or 2) any full professor of architecture or engineering at a college or university with an accredited program in the United States of America.

Currently there are   0 (zero)   qualified and verified signatories to this petition.

(Now that September 11, 2016 has passed, there still have been no qualified professionals willing to support NIST!  If you are qualified, please send us your credentials and a statement saying why you support this petition.)
Our campaign to mark the 15th anniversary (2016) was a bust – no new qualified signatories! … Sign the petition and join with other qualified professionals who support the 9/11 NIST Reports.

The purpose of this petition is to request that the organization, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, discontinue claiming that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)  investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11, 2001 is incomplete and misleading.  This organization claims that the extent of the errors is so great that a new investigation into the fire-induced collapses of the World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11, 2001 is needed.  As supported by NIST’s own claims, these reports are complete and thorough.  Upon close review, it is clear that all doubts are completely unfounded.  To ensure that this message is underscored and not diluted by professions whose stature is not the highest, this petition is limited to professionals who are above reproach and express unwavering support for the above referenced research and analysis.  This petition  states:

We the undersigned are qualified by training and experience to express a professional opinion about the completeness and veracity of the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding the fire induced collapses of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11, 2001. We understand that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth portray these reports as incomplete and even fraudulent.  We respectfully disagree and request that this effort cease and that apologies be made to the report authors and directors at NIST.  With the full weight and backing of our professional credentials we hereby assert:

  1. Whereas, in our considered opinion, it is to be expected that a 47 story, modern steel framed building  (World Trade Center Building 7) that met all applicable  building codes in the mid-1980s can be reasonably expected to collapse across its entire length and breadth and exhibit free fall acceleration for over 100 feet of its descent as a result of office fires.
  2. Whereas, in our considered opinion, it was a reasonable narrowing of the NIST investigation to exclude investigations into the use of explosives by surveying select, unidentified, individuals and asking them if they heard “loud” sounds of explosions.
  3. Whereas, in our considered opinion, computer simulation models that NIST developed that identified new modes of structural failure should not be released to engineering and architectural professional and universities that teach students how to build the next generation of skyscrapers.
  4. Whereas, in our considered opinion, a 1200 foot diameter debris field centered around each of the twin Tower would be expected as a result of a gravitational collapse emanating from localized failures, at or near the impact zone of the aircraft.  This symmetrical destruction is in no way suggestive of explosive forces located in the center (for example in the vicinity of the elevator shafts) of the structures, and is completely explained by the weakening of internal steel members at the center of the building.
  5. Whereas, in our considered opinion, it is expected that structural failures around the entire perimeter of the twin towers will proceed at nearly the same rate as structural members falling outside the building and furthermore, this is indicative of a gravitational collapse of an intact structure  (below the aircraft impact zone)

We petition Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth to cease its campaign for a new investigation as it is wholly unwarranted.  Furthermore, we provide this petition as a public statement that we, licensed architectural and engineering professionals, find the Architects & Engineers for 9/11Truth complaints wholly unfounded.

See the list of petition signers on the List of Petitioners


Additional Context

The following videos, photos and documents provide the context for our disagreements with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and their campaign to discredit the comprehensive and factual work by NIST.

Regarding point 1 in the petition:  The following video shows the fire-induced collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.  Even though from a macro-perspective it behaves similar to a known controlled demolition, it is reasonable to expect that this is how a fire-induced structural collapse would be expected to proceed.

Regarding point 2 in the petition: The analysis performed by NIST conclusively rebuts  claims about the use of explosives.  This is clearly supported by the information presented on the bottom of page xxxvi of the NCSTAR 1A report:

“Simulations of hypothetical blast events show that no blast event played a role in the collapse of WTC7. NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a single critical column would have resulted in a sound level of  130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio of video recordings of the WTC7 collapse.”

What is clear from the following video is that the sounds recorded or heard by witnesses were below the threshold justified by NIST.   Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth uses sounds in this video as justification to criticize NIST’s thoroughness.

Regarding point 3 in the petition: The following videos show the NIST animation using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) models that was used to understand and document the structural failure mechanism. A letter from NIST explains why they are not be released, and therefore, preventing engineering and architectural professionals and most especially universities where students are being taught the latest in how to build the next generation of skyscrapers. The FEA two versions, taken together, show that fires alone were responsible to the destruction of the building and debris from the World Trade Center twin Towers played no significant part in the buildings destruction.


Regarding point 4 in the petition:  The failure of specific structural elements internal to each of the twin Towers would be reasonably expected to create two 1200 foot diameter debris field where each was centered around the middle of each tower.

Photo by Det. Greg Semendinger, NYC Police Aviation Unit
 
World Trade Center Building Performance Study Figure 1-7

Regarding point 5 in the petition: As would be expected, these videos show that the destruction of the twin Towers is proceeding at “near free fall,” as evidenced by the rate of destruction of the building structure at about the same speed as steel debris are falling alongside the building. This is what would be expected from a gravity-only collapse.

For the south Tower, as viewed from under the debris cloud, structural materials falling outside the building are falling at about the same rate as the continuing wave of destruction, and therefore the view is not obstructed. This is what would be expected from a gravity-only collapse with all that weight above.

Looking at the structural materials falling outside and alongside the North Tower perimeter columns, the rate of destruction that is apparent along the vertical face of the building is what one would expect from a gravity-induced structural collapse with all that weight above.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment