Dr. John Wyndham's comments to NIST (WTC7)

UPDATE: Dr. Wyndham has supplied us a final draft in place of the NIST comments posted yesterday. -rep.

(NIST welcomes comments on the draft report and recommendations-available online at http://wtc.nist.gov-received by noon Eastern Daylight Time on Sept.15, 2008. Comments may be submitted via:
. e-mail to wtc@nist.gov;
. fax to (301) 869-6275; or
. surface mail to WTC Technical Information Repository, Attn: Stephen Cauffman, NIST, 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, Md. 20899-8610. - Thanks to Michael Jackman for sending this in. Dr. Wyndham previously publicly responded to Rep. Jane Harman regarding the conflation of 9/11 Truth sites like AE911truth.org with terrorism. -rep.)


WTC Technical Information Repository
Attn: Stephen Cauffman,
NIST, 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 8611,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20899-8610.

Dear Sirs:

I have examined the documents¹ you provided on your theory of the collapse of WTC 7 due to fires by way of thermal expansion. It is apparent that you have spent a great deal of time, effort, money and thought on this project.

However, like Ptolemy’s Theory of Epicycles, you begin with a faulty and unproven assumption. It is also the least likely assumption based on the evidence. Therefore, although your computer modeling may be intricate, your results are completely speculative and have no connection with the reality of what happened to that building. You are simply “adding epicycles” to a theory based on a false premise.

Your theory essentially rests on two physical observations:

  1. There were office fires in WTC 7 that burned for some hours.
  2. The building completely collapsed.

Observation 1 is not in dispute, except as to the location, extent, and effect of the fires. You never observed these fires from inside the building, and you have no actual measurements of the thermal expansion and deformation of the structural steel beams whatever. You never examined any of the steel.

Observation 2 runs contrary to 100 years of experience with the behavior of steel-framed buildings that have caught on fire. Every one of them was subjected to thermal expansion, but never before has there been such a collapse. To now postulate that a collapse did occur due to office fires is the height of scientific recklessness.

Your consideration of hypothetical blast scenarios (Appendix D) is disingenuous, to say the least. You rule out a possible blast on the basis that it would have been audible, but was not reported. You consider only RDX and C4, which is RDX-based and known to be noisy. RDX has been in use since WWII and C4 reportedly has been used by terrorists. It is simply not believable that foreign terrorists could have gained unobserved access to WTC 7 before 9/11 (scenario 1) or during the 6 hour interval prior to its collapse (scenario 2). Why did you not consider the use of thermite, thermate, nano-thermites, and other state of the art materials? As shown by Kevin Ryan, NIST has extensive knowledge of and experience with the latter materials².

In contrast to the non-existent observational basis for your theory, there exists a large and growing body of evidence, physical, eye-witness, anecdotal, and circumstantial, that points to controlled demolition as the reason for the building’s collapse.

Millions of people worldwide are in ready possession of this evidence. Allow me to briefly review this evidence for you.

Physical Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

  1. The rapid onset of collapse indicates controlled demolition. Natural collapses begin slowly as the steel deforms (but this has never before led to collapse from office fires).
  2. The symmetrical, straight-down nature of the collapse. In a natural collapse, the building would tend to topple or show asymmetries.
  3. The time taken by the collapse, approximately 6.5 seconds. This is almost free-fall speed and indicates little resistance, which is incomprehensible if natural. Your theory of a slower collapse within the outer frame of the building is outrageous speculation.
  4. The neat, tidy debris pile, a few stories high, with adjoining buildings essentially untouched. Such a pile is the main objective and hallmark of controlled demolition.
  5. The molten metal and high temperatures observed for weeks afterwards in the debris pile. Only incendiary and explosive materials, such as thermite, thermate, and nano-thermites could produce these temperatures. Particles in the dust indicate these materials.
  6. The evidence of corroded steel with sulfur found by FEMA. Again, sulfur is a product of a thermate reaction.

Eye-witness Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

  1. The testimony of Barry Jennings. Mr. Jennings timeline is crucial and unassailable. The essentials of his story were told to Eye-Witness Channel 7 News shortly after 1 pm on 9/11/01, and later elaborated on in taped interviews. BEFORE either tower fell, he was blown back, by an explosion, from the sixth floor to the eighth floor in a stairwell in WTC 7. The sixth floor landing was destroyed. Help came twice and ran away when each tower collapsed. He was in the dark for several hours. He heard explosions from that time (before 9:58 am) until he was found and led to safety around 1 pm. At that time the lobby of WTC 7 was completely destroyed. None of this could have happened because of the tower collapses. All his eye-witness evidence points to pre-demolition blasts in WTC 7.
  2. The video-taped statements of various firemen and policemen before 5:20 pm on 9/11/01 to the effect that WTC 7 was “coming down” or “about to blow up.” This pre-knowledge indicates controlled demolition.
  3. The video-taped statement of a witness who overheard a “count-down” for WTC 7 on a worker’s radio.
  4. The many videos showing the actual collapse of WTC 7, with various evidences of controlled demolition such as a kink in the roof, exploding charges at upper stories, and so on.
  5. Audible explosions heard by eye-witnesses just before and during the collapse of WTC 7.

Anecdotal Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

  1. Larry Silverstein’s remarks about the decision to “pull” are clear enough. The arguments about the meaning of “pull” are beside the point. There is a causal relationship between “and they made that decision to pull” and “then we watched the building collapse.” The latter follows the former. The decision to “pull” resulted in the fall of WTC 7. This could only take place with controlled demolition.
  2. When Barry Jennings and Hess arrived at the OEM, Floor 23, in WTC 7 around 9 am, they found it empty. Why? $13 million dollars was expended to create this impregnable floor, and the towers had not yet fallen! The food and coffee showed the occupants had left in a hurry. Then Jennings made a phone call and was told he must “get out of there.” Why? The only plausible answer is that the pre-demolition blasts were about to begin.
  3. The BBC and CNN early announcements of the complete collapse of WTC 7 have never been satisfactorily explained. Obviously, the pre-knowledge of the demolition was handled badly by these news outlets.

Circumstantial Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

  1. Removal and destruction of WTC 7 steel before examination is the most compelling evidence of fraud. It is inconceivable that, if WTC 7 fell as the result of office fires, the steel would be quickly removed and shipped away to be destroyed before examination. This fact alone is enough to convince anyone that there was something to hide. The action of the government in this respect defies all the norms of civilization itself, were the collapse to be a truly natural and unexpected event.
  2. Real examination of the steel was denied to all. Instead, it was shipped away like garbage. But, with GPS tracking, no truck was allowed to lose its way to the dump or the dock. No independent party was to have access to the steel. Again, this suggests fraud.
  3. Omission from the 9/11 Commission Report of any mention of WTC 7 also points to fraud. The complete collapse of a 47-story building is not trivial.
  4. NIST’s failure to seriously consider other causes besides fire for the building collapses strongly suggests government interference in a scientific process, and points to a selective and thereby fraudulent investigation. The standards for fire investigations call for tests for explosives. No such tests were made.
  5. The entire 9/11 “official” story appears to be a litany of impossible and improbable events, accompanied by a brazen suppression of evidence. Your investigation of WTC 7’s collapse must be seen within this context. In this respect, your selective approach to the collapse of WTC 7 continues the pattern of obfuscation.

In any criminal investigation, the behavior of witnesses and possible suspects is of vital interest, especially where it concerns the removal, destruction, and suppression of evidence. Many of the circumstances surrounding WTC 7’s collapse suggest fraud.

Every scientific theory, to be valid, must give results that are repeatable. What does your theory predict?

Firstly, it predicts that other steel-framed buildings that have office fires may also completely collapse after a few hours. Will firemen attend to such fires? What will be the result in loss of life and property if they decline to fight these fires? What will be your liability for these losses, if they act on the basis of your theory?

Secondly, fire insurance rates for steel-framed buildings should now jump astronomically. What will be the effect on building owners, and society in general?

Thirdly, will controlled demolition companies now attempt a cheap way to bring down a building by setting a few fires? What mischief will this cause to surrounding properties and all concerned?

Your theory, if believed, has extremely serious consequences for the steel building construction industry and society in general. For this reason, it is doubtful whether anyone will embrace it. On the contrary, there is likely to be a public reaction that will expose its falsity. In addition, a vast and growing number of citizens of this and other countries are now on the march toward a truthful and independent accounting of 9/11. Your theory lacks scientific credibility. It is certain to be repudiated by future generations if not this one.

Sincerely yours,

John D. Wyndham, PhD (Physics)


1. http://wtc.nist.gov/
2. http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Physical Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

1. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7

2. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7

3. http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/WTC7_collapse_examination.pdf

4. http://physics911.net/stevenjones

5. http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Thermite-Jones10apr06.htm

6. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

Eye-witness Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

1. http://www.911blogger.com/node/16573

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

3. http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/first_responders_heard_wtc_7_demo_countdown.htm

4. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html

5. http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/first_responders_heard_wtc_7_demo_countdown.htm

Anecdotal Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

1. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html

2. http://www.911blogger.com/node/16573

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

Circumstantial Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

1. http://911review.com/coverup/groundzero.html


2. http://www.sf911truth.org/flyer2.pdf

3. https://web.archive.org/web/20041014154300/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

4. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697907/posts

5. Books by David Ray Griffin and others: For example,
The New Pearl Harbor, Olive Branch Press, 2004.
The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Olive Branch Press, 2004.

'Nuff said

This and the clear video of the collapse of building seven will convince any REASONABLE open minded person of the truth.


This excellent summary by Dr. John Wyndham is THE mainstream TRUTH position.

What a rebuttal to NIST


That was pure pwnage.

well played sir!


Extremely well written!!

Beautiful piece!

Controlled Demolition, the obvious answer, wasn't an option.

If there weren't negative and likely severe criminal implications attached to the answer controlled demolition, then it would have taken them hours, not years to come up with the answer. And that answer would be Controlled Demolition.

Do you think Dr. Sham and his crew of researchers felt any pressure to come up with an explanation that didn't involve controlled demolition? Or course they did.

Can you even imagine what would happen if they did come to the conclusion that WTC 7 was imploded by controlled demolition? Would they be praised by their superiors in Bush's cabinet? Would they get raises and feel the comfort of job security?

Actually, if they did come to the conclusion that WTC 7 was taken down by controlled demolition, their lives would likely be in danger.

Given this fact, could anyone categorize the latest NIST study as unbiased?

Of course not.

Good work.

Good work. Excellent.

JFK on secrecy and the press

Absolutely beautiful piece

Absolutely beautiful piece of work. Best quick summary I have ever seen of the entire 7 situation.

And what is its destiny, upon receipt over at NIST?

Straight in the trash, with a shrug and a smirk.

These guys cannot give one inch, not one single centimeter at this point or they are totally doomed. And they know it.

But they are holding the whip hand, and I for one believe their Official Line including this latest stupid crap from NIST will hold up just fine, without MEANINGFUL consequences, for another 100 years or so, til long after everyone alive in 2001 is dust in the wind.

100 years?

One of the few good models for the durability of the 9/11 cover-up is that for the JFK conspiracy. It certainly did not take 100 years for the JFK lie to semi-officially crack, this started in 1967 with Jim Garrison's arrest of Clay Shaw, it continued in 1976 with the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations and perhaps climaxed with Oliver Stone's film "JFK" in 1991. Meaningful, but limited, consequences for the CIA were imposed by the Church Committee in 1975.

But of course, 9/11 is different than the JFK conspiracy. To the extent that 9/11 is much bigger, more profound (the assassination of JFK was no "Pearl Harbor"), it is really hard to believe the official corporate line will be anything but the lie (just as it continues to be with JFK). If they admitted the truth about 9/11, the corporate powers could largely loose control of the population they enslave. The political climate is obviously different today too. Today, a Watergate-like event would be ignored by the corporate controlled media and then dismissed as a "conspiracy theory". So, perhaps 100 years is not unreasonable.

Perhaps Orwell said it best: "He who controls the past, controls the future."

However, once the Bush-Cheney leave office in a few months (thank God), I am expecting a new series of 9/11 cracks to emerge. There have to be insiders who are afraid to talk while the murders are still in office.

We Can Still Work at Changing Minds. IT IS WORKING

North Texans for 911 Truth (new site)
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site

Joe is right !!! "To hell with the odds..."

North Texans for 911 Truth take a stand for Truth. To hell with the odds...damn the coyotes of injustice...those thieving liers have met their match. Honor & Truth are on our side. Stand Proud...Stand Tall for 9/11 Truth. (4 minute video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpH453BTUJk )

> It certainly did not take

> It certainly did not take 100 years for the JFK lie to semi-officially crack,

From the mil.gov's point of view, any fool wingnut can believe any damn thing they want, as long as the mint juleps are still being served on the veranda.

Notice I said MEANINGFUL consequences.

Painfully, I must agree....

This letter, so well written, will be ignored. I hope I'm wrong but don't think so.

Great link

Great link as "signature" !


Yes, there is clearly a CAUSAL linguistic relationship between "pull" and "collapse". That is, by the way Silverstien spoke, he meant that "pull" CAUSED "collapse".

Where are the legions of linguists rushing to make this publically known? Are they busy licking Noam Chomsky's sandels?

This is yet another one of those times for 9/11 Truth to look down with disgust at academia.

Bravo Doctor!

NIST= Not Interested In Seeking Truth
NIST=Never Investigated Scientific Theories
NIST=Never Invested Serious Thought

Give us our money back we're not paying for this crap!

Have you noticed?

NIST and all the other "official" cover up stories NEVER show the entire animations they purport are created based on real physics. In every single presentation I've seen the animations are never shown from the beginning of the collapse all the way through until the end. I'm sitting here watching the Discovery channel propaganda about the towers and the Pentagon and it's completely blowing my mind how obvious they are hiding the facts. They actually acknowledge the core columns in this piece, but still they don't even show the full animation of the collapse that they programmed into the simulation software. It's just sooooo obvious that the timing of the animations do not match with the timing of the real life events documented on video. They would never be able to super impose one of their animations over video of the real thing and have it match. And they know this and that is why they never show it.

I'm totalling losing all respect for Discovery channel at this point. The only thing I'm discovering is more lies.

Dr. Wyndham's letter


This is, in many ways, a landmark letter.

Can anyone provide any details as to who Dr. Wyndham is and his credentials, etc...


Thumbs up to the Doc

Have you ever read anything so beautifully concise?

except he admits he deliberately misquotes Silverstein

Take a pretty good complaint letter and toss your credibility away. Sure. Whatever.

"* This is not a direct quote of Silverstein's words. He said, "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.""

Yeah. So drop it.

If they (the FIRE DEPARTMENT) made the decision to pull the firefighting, and we watched the building collapse, hey, guess what, HE'S PUSHING THE OFFICIAL STORYLINE!

The bone-headedness of what is described above as "the MAINSTREAM truth position" is sort of sad.

"Larry Silverstein's remarks about the decision to "pull" are clear enough."

Yeah, his press release says it referred to the firefighting operation. That's pretty clear.

If you're a physicist, stick to the physics.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

A Compilation Argument

As regards WTC7, I simply feel that Dr. Wyndham has done an excellent job of distilling the essential problems with NIST's explanation of the "collapse". His reference to Mr. Silverstein's comment is under the heading of "circumstantial evidence" and is just ONE piece of the puzzle. For context, Silverstein's previous comment in his statement was "pull IT" (as opposed to, say, "pull THEM" -- firemen).

By "mainstream" I only meant that it is those items well supported by logic and empirical evidence and facts, that's all.

NIST needs to know.......

...that we see right through their crap, though when you say, "If you're a physicist, stick to the physics," I happen to agree with you -- but it's all good.

Dr. Wyndham removed the statement

in the final draft posted above.

Unknown to me, the draft that was sent in was a working draft. This has been replaced.

FEMA very concerned about the 9-11 steel

FEMA was very concerned about the 9-11 steel ...so concerned:

'Besides FEMA?s quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.'

Show "Erroneous claims hurt the movement" by gregory urich

Sorry Gregory, don't get your point

"If you calculate the expected energy dissipation in a bottom-up collapse (correctly), you will find this corresponds well with the observed collapse time."

I don't know what you mean by this or why it is important. Can you clarify? Are you saying there is nothing suspicious about WTC 7's collapse?

Cause it sure looks suspicious.

It's about credibility

I agree, it looks suspicious and I have not yet come to a conclusion myself. I am not satisfied with the WTC7 draft for the reasons that Dr. Frank Greening has pointed out.

Nonetheless, I think it is difficult for NIST (or anyone else for that matter) to take us seriously, if we make so many erroneous claims. This is not the forum for debating the individual claims, but I sincerely believe the majority of the claims made by Wyndam either do not favor CD over fire or are unsupported. I would be glad to discuss this at length at The 9/11 forum and my opinions are subject to revision based on new evidence or analysis. Just yesterday, I watched the BBC 9/11 conspiracy documentary and was shocked to learn that investigators who went in to the building during the fire found elevators that had been blown out. This is in the core where any debris from WTC1 collapsing could never have reached.

By the way, the criticism of the WTC7 report by Dr. Frank Greening here. Unfortunately, this was taken down from the main page because some people question Dr. Greenings motives. My impression of Dr. Greening is that he is an honest and serious scientist that challenges both NIST and poor science done by the truth movement.

Truth first, then Justice.


Agree or disagree with Mr. Urich, I think the individuals who gave this a -10 rating did not understand what he was saying.

A bottom up collapse can potentially have a very fast fall time, as most of the entire weight of the building is involved. If one of the twin towers was compromised and began to collapse on the 10th floor, the fall speed we observed would have been, imho, a lot more credible. Bottom up is simply a more efficent way to demolish a building.

There are of course many other questions regarding WTC7, such as symmetry of collapse, cause, and so forth.

I'm not a member or involved in any way, but I would suggest that everyone reading this should check out The 9/11 Forum that Gregory links to. From a scientific standpoint, the information on that forum is a lot more solid and satisfying than anything else I have ever seen in 9/11 Truth.

I get pissed sometimes at criticsms...

My own philosophy is "If you disagree or find fault with an action that another is doing, then go do it yourself better." Any person has the ability to take initiative and action. Often I find that those who strain at finding fault in others do the least amount of action themselves. If you yourself have given out over a 1,000 pieces of 9/11 Truth promo, or conducted intensive scientific research and peer review, or a feat of that type of nature, then you might have a ticket for criticism in the Truth action of another.

I have the same philosophy, but....

that doesn't mean every action is a good or productive action, the film "Missing Links" being a recent case in point. I think there is a very important place in this movement for holding "ourselves" accountable in the same we we are attempting to hold others accountable and setting high standards for ourselves. As the Ghandi quote at the end of the Ottawa First Responders video so aptly states, "You must BE the change you want to see in the world."

Wyndham details please

Yah. Well, since we've already crowned Dr. Wyndham the "Greatest Human Ever," can someone please give me one shred of a clue as to who the hell he is?

I mean, if I'm going to worship him, lick his boots, and, at the very least quote him and point others to his letters, I'd like to be able to say SOMETHING, ANYTHING about him. Nothing in the letter identifies him, or his location, or professional associations.

Does he really exist?

I would have thought by now, with all you geeks out there, SOMEONE be all over this. But besides all the fawning over what he has written I don't see anything about HIM.

So, Ferris? Anyone???

Who is Dr. Wyndham?


has not been active as a professor since 1970. He attended Cambridge, Caltech and Pepperdine.

While he was maintaining his academic status, he published a number of papers as J.D. Wyndham;


I'll supply more as it becomes available.

Wyndham I.D.

. Super. That at least constitutes that he exists. Thanks

What do you mean "Who is Dr. Wyndham?"

Who is Dr. Wyndham?
"By his fruits you shall know him."
His fruit is a well-written, well-researched, well-reasoned and well-documented article.

It is a sad, sad, sad state of affairs that people are swayed by "authority figures" with degrees and titles. How would Dr. Shyam Sunders' "thermal expansion" thesis be received if he did not have a title and a "prestigious" position at NIST?

Pithy and persuasive!

One addition:

"Audible explosions heard by eye-witnesses just before and during the collapse of WTC 7."

Explosions can actually be heard on this video:


It should be brought to NIST's attention, as they are saying that there were no audible explosions.

They know about the videos

It's impossible that NIST doesn't know about these videos on youtube. They know about them. John Gross says there was no melted steel. He knows there was. Sundar also knows about S Jones work. They also know about the FEMA report. What they need to do is explain why they are pretending none of it exists. But I think we all know the answer to that. Make them say it. Make them admit, they refused to consider any other reason other than fire. And the reason they did that is to keep the myth alive.

The myth of "America". The America the people are brainwashed into thinking GOD loves best. A free open and peacefull country. It's always been just an idea. It's never been real. Ever. "All men are created equal", written by slave owners. It was never real. Never. But it is an idea. An Idea worth fighting for and defending. And NIST, like most ordinary spineless, corrupt, brainwashed, worthless politcal beaucrats, have no intention of going against the "staus quo" and exposing the myth. The myth of America, and the myth of 9/11 which has been woven into it by neocons and gone along with by dumbed down brainwashed non interested masses.

thermite/thermate/nano-thermate is silent, no?

if not silent, surely capable of performing its attack on steel without making the 120 db audio signature presumed by NIST. true?

Greening paper on the NIST report

See also the short paper by Dr Greening at http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-rep.... This looks at fire ignition and spreading, fire intensities and durations, structural heating, collapse initiation and propagation, and shows how the NIST report is not credible in these respects.