CTBUH stifles discussion on NIST's WTC 7 report

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) recently published their comments on the NIST draft for final report on WTC 7, as reported on 911Blogger.

CTBUH's comments and NIST's investigation are discussed on this CTBUH forum.

When one reads the exchanges, it becomes pretty obvious that DScott, the CTBUH Chairman, displays no interest at all in discussing any of the difficult questions raised by several posters about NIST's report and WTC 7 investigation.

This becomes even more obvious when one sees what kind of a "putsch" took place after I challenged DScott on the issue of evidence destruction, and after Chris Sarns of AE911Truth had concluded that NIST had changed their previous statements about the use of shear studs in girders in order to facilitate their latest theory.

All four of my posts and Chris' latest post were deleted and the discussion forum closed. On CTBUH's homepage it now reads "The forum on this topic has now closed, however, click here to read over the comments that were posted....."

I was able to retrieve a version that contained all the posts except the last posts by Chris and I from Google's cache. It can be found here:


Please compare that pre-deletion thread to the "cleaned" one. As you can see, DScott actually commented on one of my posts. My response to what I consider a fantastically naive comment by him is the last post on that cached page. It was allowed to stay in the thread until Chris and I had both posted one more comment, in which Chris drew conclusions about NIST's omission of shear studs and I touched on the same issue and enlarged on the idea that ordinary office fires could reproduce the effects of a skilled controlled demolition. Those contributions, apparently, were too much, and they decided to remove my preceding posts as well, complete with DScott's reply to one of them.

I never expected censorship quite so blatant.

This was my brief message to the moderator:

Hello Jan,

I must say that I am surprised and disappointed that my posts (and some of mr. Sarns) were deleted long after they had appeared (and had even been commented on by DScott). Was the purpose of the retroactive deletion to stifle critical discussion?

An anecdote. I and my brother were watching the destruction of WTC 7 on video. My niece's 8-year-old daughter came into the room, watched the repeating video and said (in Finnish of course): "Building crumbles." I asked her if she saw what happens. She exclaimed "Yes. A bomb!"

An 8-year-old kid (never exposed to such videos or discussion before) was immediately able to see what many adults refuse to believe.


Thanks Vesa!

Thanks Vesa,

Your comments on the CTBUH-WTC 7 thread were very much appreciated.

It seems that 9/11 Truth and controlled demolition has become a problem for the CTBUH.

I hope that in the future the CTBUH will try to resolve this problem with serious technical discussion as opposed to censorship.


smells funny

the tone and manner of that thread is very hostile... david scott strikes me as a very curious individual... how does he know that the 100K+ engineers he cited all disagree with a CD theory? did he poll them? why is he so guarded about "conspiracy theories"? and, most importantly, how is he so completely clueless about the potential conflict of interest? by ignoring the potential conflict implied by their relationship to NIST, he only increases suspicion of the conflict.

something stinks.

Not for real

Dave Scott, chairman of CTBUH, Did not respond to the problems with the NIST report that Vesa, myself, and some other posters before us pointed out. Instead, he told us to send our concerns to NIST. As if he did not know that NIST is no longer accepting public comment.

When the going got tough, the moderator for the SkyscraperCity forum closed the thread and deleted all Vesa's comments, DScott's responses to Vesa's comments and mine, and the respectful replies that we posted.

The credibility of these two organizations has been tarnished. If there are any members of these organizations reading this, I ask you to spread the word of this rejection of fair and reasonable debate among your membership.

This discussion by CTBUH of the NIST Final Draft is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.

did you happen to save any

did you happen to save any portion of the original, unedited thread? it'd be interesting to see that exchange.

As I write in my blog:

I was able to retrieve a version that contained all the posts except the last posts by Chris and I from Google's cache. It can be found here:


Shear Studs

In their June 2004 report (and in the actual shop drawings*), NIST referred to the use of shear studs in World Trade Center 7. Shear studs are used to keep steel floor beams and girders in place; they impart stability and strength to buildings. But in their August 2008 final report, NIST re-worded their comments on shear studs to make it appear that none were used on the floor girders.

Why would they do this? To know the answer, you need to understand NIST's collapse theory. This is how it goes:

1. The key girder between column 79 and the exterior wall fails at floor 13.
2. Its failure causes the collapse of floors 13 through 6.
3. Column 79, now unsupported laterally by these floors, buckles and brings down the entire building.

This scenario is easier to posit if the key girder isn't being held firmly with shear studs. Thus, in the August 2008 report, NIST did what it had to do to make it more reasonable that the girder would fail: It magically omitted the shear studs.

Compare these two paragraphs. In the excerpted paragraph of the 2004 report, NIST says that studs were used with both beams and girders, although the studs "were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders" (the girder associated with column 79, by the way, was not a core girder). In the 2008 report, however, not only does NIST drop the association of girders with shear studs ( first sentence of excerpted paragraph), but then they go on to imply that studs were not indicated at all on the girders (last sentence of excerpted paragraph):

June 2004 NIST L pg 6 [10 on pg counter]
Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center**. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders.

August 2008 NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 15 [59]
Most of the beams [the words "and girders" are deleted] were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced [the words "1 to" are deleted] 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for [the words "many of the core" are deleted] the girders.

Then, in this paragraph of the 2008 report, they use the "absence" of shear studs to help make their case:

August 2008 NCSTAR 1A pg 49 [87]
At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams.

This deliberate distortion of the evidence can only be called fraud. Even those who have accepted the official story must acknowledge that NIST's misstatements of its own report are not mistakes. They are bending the facts to accommodate a theory that cannot, so to speak, stand up.

*NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, Fig. 12-4
** "on center" - a term that means “apart”

By Judy Shelton and Chris Sarns

Broken Link

http://www.q-olio.net/vesa/pre-deletion/ does not work for me. Has it been moved?
--David Chandler

It works for me

I just checked. Could you retry?

Denial of service attack

The maintainer of the site told me that the problem was caused by a denial of service attack, which lasted for a few hours.

Shear Studs

In comment from Judy Shelton and Chris Sarns, I presume the absence of shear studs in the girders would violate International building codes. Can anyone familiar with building codes validate that assumption as being correct?

Dwain Deets

Building codes


Good question. It certainly violates common sense.

Does anyone have access to the NY city or county high rise building codes?