Support 911Blogger


Requesting release of the NIST computer model for WTC7

Yesterday, I went to a town hall meeting with an aid to US Senator Mike Lee (UT) and expressed my concerns regarding NIST's report on WTC 7. The Senator's aid was open minded and well aware that some felt strongly that events of 9/11 were allowed by the US government or even “orchestrated” (his term).

It seems to me that a new investigation by Congress would be most unlikely at this stage. Instead, I requested that NIST's computer model for the WTC7 failure and fall be released to us so that independent testing can proceed (my letter below). The aid to Senator Lee assured me that he would pass this request along to the Senator and include my concerns in his report to Senator Lee.

Do you think this approach has merit? Could we successfully apply pressure to NIST to release their WTC 7 computer model, via Senators, Congresspersons, polls, etc? Is this a worthwhile goal for the 9/11 Truth Community? Could AE911Truth engineers run the model if it were released?

To: Senator Mike Lee (Utah)
From:
Dr. Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics, Ret.
[address given]

1. The key to good science is independent verification.
2. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was charged by Congress to explain the complete collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11/2001 (the 47-story building that was not hit by a plane).
3. NIST developed a computer model with adjustable parameters to explain the WTC 7 collapse.
4. I request that this WTC7-fall computer model be released immediately in a computer-ready form so that independent testing/verification can proceed. This model was developed using taxpayer funds.
5. In particular, NIST states in their 2008 report,
“The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used.” I challenge that assumption, and wish to insert into the computer model the known physical value for thermal conductivity, to see how this changes things.

6. There are now over 1,700 engineers and architects in the AE911Truth.org society, and I am confident that our combined expertise will permit us to perform the independent verification of the NIST WTC7 computer model, once that computer simulation is released in full to us, in computer-ready form.

7. Contact information for NIST:

NIST WTC Investigation Team
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8610
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610
Phone: (301) 975-6051
Email: wtc@nist.gov  

Sincerely,

Dr. Steven E. Jones

Assessing the action options

Dear Dr. Jones,

I am so glad you went to that meeting.

Suppose that the 9/11 Truth community has 250 calls or letters or emails available to us. That is, with a well coordinated campaign there are 250 of us who will write, call, or email somebody in the establishment with a given message about 9/11 Truth. The actual number will be somewhere between 50 and 500, I'd guess. The question is how best to apply that political pressure. I see 4 options:

#1) Write, call or email NIST and make the request.
#2) Write, call or email the U.S. Senator(s) who represent us.
#3) Write, call or email one U.S. Senator such as US Senator Mike Lee (UT)
#4) Write, call or email a newspaper or TV or radio station.

In my opinion option 1 will go nowhere fast. Michael Newman will receive the requests, he may respond saying, "We have already answered that question. We cannot release the full model because it would jeopardize public safety", and that will be the end of it.

Option 2 will be too diluted an effort to get any 1 Senator to actually do anything about it. At most the Senators will reply with a form letter saying something like, "The 9/11 Commission and NIST have fully investigated this matter and we agree with their conclusions. Thank you for bringing your concern to my attention and feel free to write to me again." End of response

Option 3 holds the greatest chance for action, in my opinion, assuming we are writing to, calling or emailing the right Senator. I believe we have a better chance if we get one Senator to actually ask NIST than (per option 2) get 10 or 20 Senators to write a form letter.

Option 4 could work if we contact the right news organization. I do not know which one that is. We have seen a conspiracy by the mass media to cover up 9/11.

In my opinion this is the area where the movement must improve: delivery of our message. Recently Greenpeace got 100,000 people to email the CEO of Costco to demand changes in their fish purchasing in order to cut down on unsustainable fishing. 12,000 of them emailed the CEO on one day! Costco agreed to change its fish buying practices as a result of Greenpeace's campaign.

Just today I received a text message, probably from Greenpeace, offering to connect me to Shell Oil Company to tell them to halt their plans for drilling in the Arctic. Because it was made so easy for me I made the call. Shell answered and referred me to their website where they have set up a place to voice my concern. I will do that.

Delivery of our message by hundreds of people is exercising political power. The movement (including Scientists for 9/11 Truth) has done a fabulous job of researching, analyzing and presenting the evidence for 9/11 Truth. But delivery is our weakness. It's where I believe we should focus our efforts.

Cordially,

Mark Graham

options 3 & 4

Mark: I like your idea of being selective in which senators and medias to approach to yield the greatest success. I'm in Canada and am not aware of such details but it would be great if a list can be compiled that we can all lend support to through e-mails or petitions. If NIST does not declassify their model, then initiative will cause the general public to simply cast more doubt on their work.

Thank You

Thank you Professor Jones for your tireless work in researching the 3 building collapses on 9/11. I wholeheartedly support your current initiative.

What's somewhat amazing is the ongoing power of the political narrative in light of the improbable and impossible collapse of WTC 7. Isn't it ironic that life may well seem 'simpler' in the physics lab! Best to you.

Brilliant

" Isn't it ironic that life may well seem 'simpler' in the physics lab!" It's like outside the lab F=ma*.

*See infield fly rule

Feedback

Thanks for your initiative Dr. Jones.

I'm not aware of any AE911Truth engineers who have any familiarity with computational structural modelling. It is important to receive all aspects of the computer model so that we can re-run the simulation and manipulate it to assess whether the model is even stable upon small changes to the input. If we can't figure out the code or how to run it, we can probably outsource it to engineers who can examine it. The more East we go .. the cheaper engineering solutions become.

Many engineers do not have access to software that models progressive collapse because it's so expensive. Extreme Loading, for example, can cost academics $15000 and industries about $20000.

pressuring NIST

It's good that jkeogh reminds us that they are hiding behind the national security cover.

NIST will simply deny our requests again. In terms of raising heat, I think we have been successful in getting certain articles a lot of attention, like the ones for the Toronto Hearings and the 9/11 Consensus, when published through PRNewsWire... a title like "1700 Architects and Engineers Demand NIST to Declassify WTC 7 Collapse Simulation for Verification". That would raise more pressure. Would do you guys think?

pressuring the public to pressure NIST even more

Love that title, though actual press articles based on our release will typically change the title to push their agenda, if they say anything at all.

I think the point of trying to get any publicity should be to use the resulting broader awareness to create a much greater force of collective action. What can people do if they want to find out more, or if they already agree and want to do more? How can we get that in the press release, in addition to the newsworthy bit about a demand by the still-too-small but ever growing group of architects and engineers?

It would be great to get a similar press release by a group of safety, security, military, and intelligence professionals, countering the response by NIST about why they will not release the documentation for their simulation of the collapse. E.g. there is no legitimate national security argument unless there was, indeed, something they are protecting other than "public safety" that really needs to be exposed for our public safety.

And it would be great to get similar press releases by other groups, announcing their meetings or studies, or plans for action. But what will the press actually report, in the way we want it reported?

Thank you Dr. Jones, once more!

This is an excellent suggestion. This puts NIST in the hot seat - if they refuse to release this information to the public, which was obtained with public funds, then it will be readily apparent that they are obfuscating.... perhaps their "analysis" was garbage, and politically tainted rather than scientifically sound - in other words, they were hiding something. If they *do* release the model, then the scientific method can proceed and independent parties can examine the code and the input data they were working with to see whether it mapped onto reality, or whether it was a preordained conclusion that they were instructed to come up with.

Since NIST (an agency of the US government) was given the task (by the US government) with investigating the destruction of the WTC buildings, the question always remains: "Could it have ever been *possible* for NIST, an agency within the US government, to have arrived at a conclusion, using the available *evidence* that implicated elements within other government agencies of complicity in, or even executing the worst ever act of terrorism on US soil?

Somehow, I have my doubts.

Emphasize Public Safety Interest

Agencies seemingly hide behind certain public safety based exemptions when pressed for records and information.

Due precisely to public safety, agencies should be forced to provide transparency so that all can evaluate particular evidence.

In the houses of shadow

I think this approach has merit. I think every initiative anyone genuinely takes has merit.
Good for the paper trail.

maybe add a few more of Sunder's NCSTAR caveats onto #5. : 1-9:352 for instance. THE critical moment in the hypothesis [no heat on concrete floor slab in the model] .

Also the 'axial expansion' of beam data run on "unrestrained steel" http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-03-10/tangled-webs-nist-and-wtc7

And 1-9: 378, Not to expect correlation between cartooNIST presentation of hypothesis and OBSERVABLE fire activity on the day .

Thank you for the comments and encouragement!

I think it is clear that the action of seeking release of the NIST computer simulation for the fall of WTC7 can have worthwhile impact. Hopefully the computer simulation will actually be released in computer-ready form so that we can flex it and see what it tells us about 9/11!

The two best approaches to reach this goal seem to be:

1. Writing Senator Mike Lee; this can be done by writing, faxing or phoning:

316 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: 202-224-5444
Fax: 202-228-1168

2. Enlisting the cooperation of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in the pursuit of this goal.
To this end, I have emailed a request to my friend Richard Gage.

Sincere best wishes,
Steve

What otherworldly data did NIST plug into their model?

If NIST releases the model used in their final report, it will be fascinating to see to what extent independent analysts would have to "flex" the model, ie, to what limits did they have to push the model's input parameter values to get WTC7 to collapse in the way that it did on 9/11? The model would also reveal whether NIST included "rogue" input parameters in the model, ie conditions that would compromise WTC7's integrity that were different to, or in addition of, what was happening inside WTC7 before it came down.

If NIST did release this model, is there any way of verifying that its the same program as was used to make their report on WTC7? The most bizarre part of this NIST fiasco is the reason they gave to maintain secrecy on this issue - "endangering public safety" (?!!) How does releasing a computer model that supposedly explains how a uniquely designed building collapsed, and now does not exist, "endanger public safety"?

Thank you for all your great work.