Request for Correction Filed with NIST by 9/11 Family Members et al. Published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies
A collaboration of group 9/11 family members and researchers challenging the official reports of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11/01 has filed a Request for Correction (RFC) with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This RFC is published in the June, 2007, volume of the Journal of 9/11 Studies: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/RFCtoNISTbyMcIlvaineDoyleJonesRyanGageSTJ.pdf
The Request asserts that the NIST Final Report violates information quality standards, draws a conclusion that is inconsistent with its own computer simulations and physical tests and available evidence contrary to it. The Request also says that if this bias is corrected, the NIST simulation clearly indicates that the Towers should not have completely collapsed with such rapidity due to plane damage and fire. The obvious alternative, which the group says should be seriously studied by NIST, is explosive demolition.
The group submitting the Request includes 9/11 family members Bob McIlvaine and Bill Doyle, architect Richard Gage, AIA, physicist Steven E. Jones, former UL manager, Kevin Ryan, and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.
California architect and member of the Requester group Richard Gage emphasizes that the buildings were designed to withstand 150mph lateral wind loads and even airplane impacts, and notes that vast majority of both towers were not damaged by fire or impact.
The assertion that the conclusion of the NIST report is incorrect is important, the Request says, because that "would mean that the assumption that foreign terrorists alone carried out the destruction would become a matter of dispute."
James Gourley, the attorney working with the Request group, says the public has a right to see all the data and ensure their validity. "We think that the American people deserve the chance to be allowed to analyze the computer models and the calculations that they have paid for. We also think Bob McIlvaine and Bill Doyle, each of whom lost a son in the WTC Towers, deserve a scientifically sound answer from NIST about how their sons were killed."
- ProfJones's blog
- Login to post comments
I hope they serve chapatis in Federal Prison
Dr. Shyamsundar, say bye bye to your family, it's time to go to prison. You did what you were told, and that was the wrong decision. Say goodbye to your fraudulent PhD as well. Ganesh can't help you now.
I don't think that Sunder, et al will be lucky enough...
...to get life for participating in a conspiracy to cover up mass murder.
--
"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)
This is great, but I am beginning to think.....
I want to believe that if this request moves forward and NIST is required to recant, the american people will begin to open their minds.
But, it seems likely that most people will still refuse to look at the evidence that surrounds 9/11. Scientific integrity is of little concern when it comes to maintaining the illusionary bubble of reality that most people live in. It will take more than facts to awaken our society from its complacent slumber, if it is possible at all.
Sorry if I come across as negative, but I am stranded and isolated in a southern, red state. Most folks in this area believe that Global Warming is a hoax, and that Saddam had WMD! It's hard to envision these people acknowledging anything, however substantiated it may be, besides the baseless tripe fed to them by FoxNews.
New Hampshire is nice this
New Hampshire is nice this time of year - www.freestateproject.org
Please let the No Plane arguments go
Listen, there is a video of Frank Dimartini (sp?) from before 9/11 where he says an airplane hitting the towers would be like poking a pencil through a mosquito netting. Thus, he seemed to think an airplane would have no trouble at all penetrating the building.
Furthermore, having read the NIST Report, ALL of their airplane impact computer models resulted in the airplane penetrating the building. The only difference between them was the amount of damage done to the core columns. To answer your specific question: they didn't choose computer models to fit the assumption that the plane penetrated the towers because ALL of their computer models resulted in the airplane penetrating the towers. And you know something, it really isn't that hard to believe from a practical standpoint either.
Your (and the other no-planers') objections to the airplane penetrating the towers have been debunked more times than I can count. One of the best analogies is small lightweight debris blowing around in a tornado getting lodged in a telephone pole. Yes, the debris may be lightweight and flexible compared to the telephone pole, but it moves at a high enough velocity that it can impart considerable force to whatever it impacts. Kinetic energy of a moving body is 1/2 * mass * velocity(squared). Therefore, velocity has a much larger impact on a moving body's kinetic energy than mass. It really isn't that difficult to believe that the airplanes penetrated the towers if you would just exercise some critical thinking.
Do yourself a favor (that is, if you're really interested in the truth) and give up on the no-plane nonsense.
To answer your first question, if the landing gear was initially travelling at around 600mph, and it didn't come into contact with any core columns or substantial building contents, then yes, it is plausible that it would only slow down about 400 mph and exit the building at about 100mph. In any case, whether it is plausible is irrelevant to the RFC. The salient point is that NIST's computer models didn't match their version of reality, and therefore must be corrected.
Response
First, I'm going to downrate myself on both of my comments because they are long. I wish we could choose to hide our comments.
The DiMartini statement merely shows that damage to a small number of columns would be compensated for by surrounding columns, and thus the building could survive multiple plane impacts. I am not disputing there would be some penetration by the heaviest portion of a plane. You are reading too much into his statement.
It is hard to believe from a practical standpoint - that's why the expert Wierzbicki said this:
To the casual observer, it would appear that the facade of the Twin Towers did not offer any resistance at all, and that the plane's wings and fuselage slice through the exterior columns as if they were made of cardboard. . . How was it possible that the relatively weak, light, and airy airframe damaged the apparently heavy lattice of high strength steel columns? The devastating result of this encounter came as a surprise to the engineering and scientific community or at least to the present authors.
Wierzbicki and Teng, How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center, Int'l J. of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 601-625, at 603.
NOAA is not clear on the straw in the tornado. They say that wind engineers have duplicated a wood splinter embedded in a brick, but also say that the pole or tree is bent by the tornado, the straw flies in to a crack, and the crack closes around the straw when the tornado passes. They also say these phenomena are poorly understood.
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/
This has reportedly been seen at wind speeds as low as 50 mph:
http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/fujitascale.htm
Here, a NOAA website says that a record album becomes a projectile. But look at the crack on the telephone pole:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadosafety.html
Here is a description of pencil shot through plywood:
http://jedlik.phy.bme.hu/scienceonstage/hartlein/sos.html
This is closest to what you are describing, but I think it also explains the difference - it's wood under compression hitting and shearing wood grains from the side, acting on a very small area. This is aluminum hitting steel columns and steel and concrete floors, and acting over broader area.
If this is so easy, why are engineers modeling it, and why do their results of the kinetic energy lost vary according to the assumptions they make?
Compare Wierzbicki's article above with Karim and Hoo Fatt, available here:
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/02/engineering-article-on-which-i-...
Karim and Hoo Fatt found much higher loss of kinetic energy in penetrating just the external columns. They did not include the floors backing the columns, and they used box beams with walls 6/16" on all four sides, when the real columns were 6/16" on the front and back, and 13/16" on the sides.
We've seen with Bazant's paper how a preposterous idea can be justified with fancy mathematics. I think this has happened again with the plane impact models.
I repeat -- the airplane impact is the major premise of NIST, accounting for insulation damage, damage to core columns, and major fires inside the building. All this required the plane to penetrate. Should this not be questioned?
You say it is plausible for the engine part to pass through WTC2 and exit at over 100 mph, because it did not hit a core column. That's not what NIST's most severe impact scenario showed, but fine.
Now explain how the lighter wheel could pass directly through the core of WTC1, on a downward trajectory that made it pass through more of the core, and still exit the other side at over 100 mph.
I understand the point the RFC is making, and I disagree with their taking an implausible "observable" as a verity in order to make a point that can be made in another way. I also disagree with them waiting until page 20 to get to the heart of the matter - the absurdity of the "progressive collapse."
The salient point is that an implausible event and implausible aircraft debris is being assumed authentic by those of us who are supposed to be questioning NIST. You seem to want them to revise their models so that the building provides even less resistance to the plane, based on an "observable" that has not been shown to be authentic.
This is not logical and does not answer my question:
They didn't choose computer models to fit the assumption that the plane penetrated the towers because ALL of their computer models resulted in the airplane penetrating the towers.
The assumptions of the models still need to be made clear. Have they been? Not as far as I can see.
What do you mean "if you're really interested in the truth"? Are you suggesting that I am not being honest here?
Truthfully, I don't know
Truthfully, I don't know whether you are being honest or not. I have a hard time believing that someone as well written as you seriously believes no planes hit the towers, but I'm not going to sit here and debate this point again. It is a complete waste of time. Go ahead and live in the magical fantasy world where all of the video footage is faked and all of the eye witnesses were looking at other planes in the sky or lying.
Actually, upon further reflection, I actually do hope you are being paid by the government to come here and press the no-planes theory. If I were in your shoes, I think It would be far better to be sane and getting paid for pushing B.S. than it would be to seriously entertain, nay, believe the insane notion that no planes hit the towers.
Fine
If you can't answer my question about the wheel passing through the core, then just say so. Calling me either dishonest or insane is really weak. You do not accuse Newton's Bit of being dishonest or insane, when what he is saying in defense of Bazant's paper is preposterous.
My questions were for Professor Jones and I would appreciate an answer.
And I'm sure professor Jones
And I'm sure professor Jones is about as sick of the no planes bullshit as I am.
I didn't accuse NB of being dishonest or insane because I can see how people would reasonably want to believe the government's version of the events and grasp onto these supposed "expert" reports to support their belief. The no plane bullshit is not analogous. It is complete bullshit that one cannot even reasonably believe. But, like I said, believe it if you want. See if I care.
Professor Jones thought enough of it
to publish studies at Journal of 9/11 Studies, and to speak about it. He said that kinetic energy balance studies matter and should comport with the deceleration of the plane. I pointed out that Salter and him had not considered a more recent study showing higher loss of kinetic energy than found by the Wierzbicki paper they cited. Journal of 9/11 Studies published a letter by Eric Salter that purported to respond to my criticism, yet failed to mention the main part of my argument, the failure to address the findings of Karim and Hoo Fatt. I think the issue has been joined, and see no reason not to continue the debate. I think part of the RFC has a flawed premise, so I addressed it here, at Professor Jones' blog.
I'm asking this in good faith, with no rancor toward Professor Jones. I would not be asking him to respond if I did not respect his expertise.
Did planes really hit the Towers?
Sorry for the delayed reply -- I spent most of the day yesterday in the laboratory and analyzing data, with not much time for responses here or to emails.
For me, laboratory work takes precedence.
Ningen asks:
1... "NIST found that the landing gear would stop inside or just outside the core of WTC1. Yet a landing gear was allegedly observed exiting the far side of the tower at 105 mph, based on the trajectory to where the wheel was found. This would require that the landing gear not only reach the other side of the building, but breach the external columns, and retain a velocity of 105 mph.
Is this plausible? "
It is one thing for the highly-dense core to stop the landing gear, and another for the external columns to do so. Is NIST saying the landing gear penetrated through the CORE columns? That does seem highly unlikely.
Note that our RFC does not depend on the veracity of NIST regarding this particular piece of landing gear you mention, Ningen.
2. About the question "Did planes really hit the Towers?" -- there are a few papers on the subject which have been peer-reviewed and published. (In the Journal of 9/11 Studies.) If you wish to challenge these papers, by all means write your own paper and submit it for publication. I have specifically invited Morgan Reynolds and others to write up their analyses -- while responding to the papers already published on the subject. That is how science proceeds.
Thank you, Professor Jones
There is no delay from you. It was just that I was under fire for even talking about the issue, as usual, and getting impatient as a result. I was just trying to make it clear that it was you I wanted a response from. Thank you for your prompt response. I will reply in the next day or two.
More questions raised...
Ningen: "NIST says that landing gear from Flight 11 passed directly through the entirety of the core and was found blocks away..."
1. Please provide the quote of NIST saying this (frankly, I find it hard to believe NIST says it this way, but maybe they did!) Need reference, a quote, not a paraphrase.
2. Do we have a photo of the south side of the North Tower, indicating WHERE the landing gear might have exited from? Or NO broken windows in the area (south side near the 94th floor)? This would be vital evidence -- where is it?
3. Is the core SOLID?
4. Could the landing gear have ricocheted inside the building 1 then exited the south side?
Ningen: "I thought the peer review of Morgan Reynolds' paper made some valid criticisms that I wish he had addressed and resubmitted the paper. However, I also think some of the criticisms were not valid, that it was subjected to a higher standard than the Salter paper, and should have been published anyway. "
5. I told Morgan (and co-author) some time ago that he could have his paper published as a Letter in the Journal of 9/11 Studies -- WITHOUT further ado (without subjection to peer-review approval). Thus, it could have been "published anyway." He did not ask to do so -- but did not say why not.
Answers
"NIST says that landing gear from Flight 11 passed directly through the entirety of the core and was found blocks away..."
1. Please provide the quote of NIST saying this (frankly, I find it hard to believe NIST says it this way, but maybe they did!) Need reference, a quote, not a paraphrase.
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/little-wheel-that-could.html
The above includes NIST's diagram of exit trajectories. I forget which page of which part of NIST this diagram comes from. This diagram shows impact in the center of the North Tower and landing gear exiting the other side and landing at Rector and West. The above link includes a picture of the landing gear - a wheel - from NC STAR 1-2., page 273.
Footnote 2 of this blog post is NIST SCSTAR 1-2, page 272
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf
NIST NCSTAR 1-2, page lxxvi has a diagram of the impact on the North Tower from above, showing a direct trajectory straight through the core.
NIST NCSTAR 1-2, page lxxv shows the impact on the North Tower from the side, with the plane at a downward angle that would increase interaction with the core.
At page 206 of the same document, NIST describes how they reduced the angle of impact in tne more severe impact analysis, which would have the effect of decreasing interaction with the floor structure and thereby increasing interaction with the core. In either case, the plane would pass directly through the center of the core, at a downward angle increasing the length of interaction.
At page 273, NIST states that all of its analyses showed the landing gear stopping inside, or just outside, the core. I understand this to mean the far side of the core. In no case did the landing gear reach the external columns on the far side.
At page 272, NIST states that the estimated exit speed from the south wall of WTC1 of the wheel found at Recter and West was 105 mph, based on the trajectory to to that location. I have estimated the distance to Cedar Street to be at least 500 feet, and based on the estimated speed and the diagram, which may not be to scale, assume that the distance to Rector and West was over 1000 feet.
2. Do we have a photo of the south side of the North Tower, indicating WHERE the landing gear might have exited from? Or NO broken windows in the area (south side near the 94th floor)? This would be vital evidence -- where is it?
NIST NCSTAR 1-2 postulates at pages 272-273 that the wheel must have exited through a dislodged panel on the south wall of WTC1. This panel is described as being columns 329, 300, and 331 of floors 93-96. (p. 272) At page 269, NIST says this panel was in the center of the south wall, indicating a straight trajectory through the center of the core.
I have discussed the implausibility of this 6-ton panel being not only dislodged, but propelled 500 feet by the impact of plane debris, here:
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/little-wheel-that-could-not-par...
It is estimated that the panel's trajectory to Cedar Street required a speed of 40 mph, which is not as high, but a 6-ton panel has high inertia that would have to be accelerated to that speed.
[Update: A factor I had not considered is whether a fireball from a plane's explosion could have done this.]
3. Is the core SOLID?
I refer you to page 7 of Eric Salter's paper at Journal of 9/11 Studies, which describes the mass of gypsum panels in the core.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf
There is space between the core columns, as shown by the diagram at page lxxxii. The impact diagrams suggests interaction with one of the two lines of 5 or 6 columns in the center of the core, or one of the two lines of two columns to each side of the center, but a trajectory missing direct impact with a core column is conceivable. It's not clear to me whether NIST assumed that impact of the landing gear with a core column would have been inevitable in concluding that the landing gear would stop inside or just outside the core.
Eric Salter describes the probable scenario as follows:
The presence of [the signficant mass of the gypsum in the impact area] would have:
* helped convert the kinetic energy of the plane parts to other forms, eg heat and pulverization.
* transferrred the momentum of the plane parts, moving at high speed, into the combined momentum of plane parts and building materials, moving at a much lower speed, and having a much greater frontal area. The south wall may have absorbed a good fractrion of momentum, but by that time the material had a large frontal area and very little structural coherence, and was thus unable to puncture the wall, with a few exceptions.
Yet NIST asks us to believe that the debris not only punctured the south wall, but propelled a 6-ton panel over 500 feet, opening a door for the wheel to exit at a speed of 105 mph and travel much farther than 500 feet. I recognize that the planting of a 6-ton panel of columns seems absurd, but maintain that the plane impact could not have put it there. Photos show the panel on Cedar Street before Saint Nicholas Church was destroyed by debris from the South Tower, so we can exclude the possibility that it got there from the pulverization of one of the towers.
Even if the panel's location was plausible, NIST's scenarios showed the wheel stopping either inside the core or just outside the core, so any residual velocity after continuing through office space would be minimal. I question whether the south wall would have been breached at all by the slowed, spread debris.
4. Could the landing gear have ricocheted inside the building 1 then exited the south side?
NIST's diagram of trajectories shows a straight trajectory. At a lesser angle, richoting between floors is possible, but the wheel would still pass straight through the center of the core.
5. I told Morgan (and co-author) some time ago that he could have his paper published as a Letter
I can't speak for Morgan Reynolds in saying whether he should have published as a Letter, but I wondered if that had been an option. Thank you for sharing this.
Miraculous fireballs?
As I stated above, I had not considered the possibility that fireballs from explosion of jet fuel could propel the 6-ton panel over 500 feet. Discussion of fireballs expelling debris is found in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, pages 73-78.
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-5index.htm
NIST does not state that the panel was dislodged and propelled to Cedar Street by fireballs. It does talk about building debris from the south face of the North Tower from aircraft impact and fireballs, along Liberty Street. (NCSTAR 1-5A, p. 74-75)
Fireballs formed on the north, east, and south faces of WTC1, with the largest observed on the north face, suggesting that "the largest amount of aviation fuel was blown backward through the hole created by the aircraft entry." (NCSTAR 1-5A, p. 78)
According to the 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 9, the fireball did lots of damage far below the impact zone, including to elevators, the lobby, and even the 22nd floor where the Security Command Center was located:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm
If so, the remaining fireball followed the path of least resistance down the core, and could not have had much force on the south side of WTC1.
It is implausible that the fireball would have propelled the 6-ton panel to Cedar Street, and NIST does not make that claim.
Incidentally, NIST NCSTAR 1-5 states the exact distances: 690 feet for the panel on Cedar Street, and 1,385 feet for the wheel on Rector and West.
NIST NCSTAR 1-5A concludes at page 78:
The aircraft wheel found embedded in the panel section at the corner of Cedar and West Street passed through the center of the building in order to hit the south face near the center. Based on where it landed, it is considered likely that the wheel that landed on the corner of Rector and West Streets also passed through the core, but this conclusion is not as well supported as for the other wheel.
Why is it not as well supported? The trajectory is the same. How could another trajectory -- for example a ricochet -- place the wheel there? NIST suggests what I have shown -- there is no way the wheel could have ended up on Rector Street from the airplane impact. NIST also does not adequately explain how the 6-ton panel was propelled almost 700 feet to Cedar Street.
Has NIST...
Responded at all Prof.?
Donate To 9/11 First Responders
No. But, their response
No. But, their response isn't due until June 11.
Noplanesianity Not Mysterious
As the ability to edit and decostruct video footage becomes more widespread, it seems to me that we may discover that some of the video footage that is supposed to show video trickery is itself purpose-made to 'prove' this, and not authentic footage from 911 at all. For instance, if we look at the dispute betwen Rick Seigel and Sophia Shafquat, we have no way of knowing whether Rick's claims are bona fide, unless we do the video analysis ourselves on examples of both products which have known dates and provenance.
Looking at the absurd rhetoric that comes out of Rick & Co., I incline to the idea that their real goal (like that of many others) is to prove that only a hi-tek solution available to the US Defense Dept alone (as opposed, say, to an Israeli demolition team brought in quietly by Silverstein and Lowy) could do the job.
Compared to this question of "who?" the question of "how?" seems to be a mere device.
You're confusing issues
The dispute between Rick and Sophia is about whether she altered his footage, not about faked videos shown on television. And the exotic weapon vs. explosives issue is separate from whether planes hit and videos were faked. The planes, real or not, were a cover for the destruction of the buildings, however it was done. Faked videos of planes doesn't let Silverstein off the hook.
yes!
my thoughts exactly.
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
NEW---> check out our revamped site!