Investigate Waste, Fraud & Abuse at NIST

An Open Letter to Inspector General Todd Zinser

Investigate NIST Officials Shyam Sunder and John Gross

Summary: I am writing to urge immediate investigation of Shyam Sunder and John Gross of NIST for the following possible violations in their investigations of the destruction of the 3 WTC towers in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001: (1) waste, fraud and abuse, (2) making false and/or incompetent statements, (3) mismanagement, and (4) possible misprision of felonies.


Todd J. Zinser
U. S. Department of Commerce
Office of the Inspector General
1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230 

Dear Inspector Zinser:


I am writing to demand immediate investigation of Shyam Sunder and John Gross of NIST for possible violations of the following in their investigations of the destruction of the 3 WTC towers in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001: (1) waste, fraud and abuse, (2) making false and/or incompetent statements, (3) mismanagement, and (4) possible misprision of felonies.

NIST noncompliance & incompetence:

NIST is well aware that their appointment to investigate 9/11 and the World Trade Center included investigation of the actual destruction of the WTC towers. NIST writes:


One of the four main objectives of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers … to determine why and how the two towers collapsed. The specific objectives were 1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed. [1]


However, NIST excluded from its work the evidence pertaining to how the three towers collapsed. NIST indicates explicitly it studied only collapse initiation, grossly neglecting its charge to explain the actual collapses.

a) NIST admits "...we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."


Notably, NIST uses an interesting but anti-scientific "appeal to authority" in trying to defend certain of its more controversial claims, by citing not its accuracy but rather the magnitude of its manpower and tasks:


Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.[2]


It is odd that - despite these well-trumpeted measures - it failed to fulfill its mandated duty to address the actual collapses. Meanwhile, citizens including family members of 9/11 victims, professors and researchers are, even without vast support staff, having success in finding important scientific data neglected by NIST.


Incompetence is indicated by NIST’s sharp reversals of view regarding:

b) The non role of diesel fuel in the collapse of WTC 7.[3]

c) The non role of debris (from larger towers) in the collapse of WTC 7.[4]


Initial NIST reports suggested that diesel fuel played a role in the collapse of WTC 7, a theory it later rejected, but not before the myth spread widely. How did such a wildly false theory come to be embraced in the first place? NIST pointed to diesel fuel despite FEMA’s explicit doubts about its role.[5] Given the vast resources available to NIST, this reversal suggests a corrupted investigation process. Was NIST grasping at straws to compensate for having neglected other very important evidence?


Another sharp and unexplained reversal of view arose with respect to explicit, and in retrospect stunning, claims about massive damage to WTC 7 from the debris of the larger towers. It seems clear such claims never had credible empirical evidence in their support, suggesting a corrupted institutional process.


Without explanation, NIST statements & reports ignore and/or contradict:


d) Indications of extremely high temperatures in FEMA & USGS reports.[6]

e) Scores of reports of explosions in oral histories of first responders.[7] NIST’s neglect of the very important data source of these oral histories is shocking and incomprehensible. Equally stunning is NIST’s conclusion that evidence for explosions was not found, a claim it defended later on the absurd and otherworldly justification that it did not look for that evidence.[8]


This is nothing other than the “logic of the ostrich” that refuses reality by shading its view.

NIST statements and reports are dubious due to their:

f) Contradictory views on the free fall descent of WTC 7 for over 100 feet.[9]

g) Failing to provide thorough explanatory scientific rationale for how its own conclusions are favorable to FEMA’s pancake model, a view widely spread in popular media.[10]

NIST models include the clearly false assumption:


h) That steel had no capacity to disperse and radiate heat.[11]

Incompetent (or deliberately false) statements by John Gross:

i) Mr. Gross is on record making shockingly misleading statements about not knowing of witnesses of molten steel.[12] Was he delivering spin regarding national security by indicating a “lack of knowledge”, despite NIST vast resources? Or was he suggesting (falsely) an actual lack of witnesses?


Molten steel or iron is testified to in the reports of many first responders & experts, as is obvious in news footage and the NYT.[13] How was he unaware of data that now countless Americans are privy to?


Shyam Sundar’s negligent avoidance of evidence


j) Mr. Sunder is on record stating he will revisit criticisms of his claims only in effect if they are first published in reviewed academic journals (while ignoring evidence that meets that standard).[14] Knowledge of published research is essential, but is nonetheless not sufficient.


NIST was not charged to produce merely reviews of academic papers, a method that would have no hope of yielding concrete answers useful to national security. Coroners examine dead bodies and police investigate crime scenes. Similarly, NIST had the charge to analyze primary data of the WTC attacks.


Mr. Sundar’s refusal to deal with new findings is a gratuitous evasion of his responsibilities. It is all the more stunning that he invokes his tendentiously restrictive standard of accountability in this context where he is facing many pressing questions about his work. The questions raised provide Mr. Sunder an opportunity to address signs that he may be guilty of waste, fraud, abuse, and/or misprision of felonies.

k) Mr. Sundar’s statements and work nakedly fail to meet even his own most favored standard of accountability; the reports he has failed to deal with include published peer-reviewed papers that plainly contest his claims.[15] Further, as noted above, NIST statements & reports ignore and/or contradict even data found in FEMA & USGS reports. [16]




Many problems of corrupted analysis and pseudo science other than these were found in NIST work, but due to limited space, just the above can be noted here. We urge everyone to study the NIST and FEMA reports and form their own judgments. Citizens are also urged to examine reports that are not paid for in government funds. Many non-public-sector studies show that salient evidence has been omitted and/or distorted in reports drafted by staff working for government officials.

Independent studies are available from 9/11 Truth Europe and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice which now count thousands of members worldwide, collectively forming among the largest bodies of researchers studying any public affairs issue.

By neglecting their charge, NIST officials may be elevating the risks of terrorism. The victims of the 2001 attacks no longer have a voice. Citizens of honor must speak for them and blow the whistle on waste, fraud, abuse and possible misprision of treason that may elevate danger to our nation.

To submit complaints against John Gross and Shyam Sunder:

Fraud Complaint Hotline


To request information from the Inspector General:

U.S. Department of Commerce
Office of Inspector General
1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230



[1] NIST NCSTAR1-2.pdf, page xxvii (29 of 462 in PDF)

[2] NIST: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)

[3] The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak, by Kevin Ryan

[4] The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak, by Kevin Ryan

[5] Steven E. Jones presentation on nanothermite.

NYT: A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE; Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade

Center: Diesel Fuel

The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak, by Kevin Ryan


[7] Oral histories

[8] Steven E. Jones presentation on nanothermite Sacramento, California, April 30, 2009.

(at 9:19) and Blueprint for Truth

[9] WTC7 in Freefall--No Longer Controversial

[10] NIST: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)

[11] Steven E. Jones presentation on nanothermite.

[12] Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11

[13] NYT: A Nation Challenged: The Site

NYT: A Search for Clues In Towers' Collapse

Chronicle of Higher Education

[14] Richard Gage of AE911Truth at NIST

[15] FEMA


Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction pp.35-40 (6) Authors:

Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. p.7-31 (25) Niels H.

Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley,

Bradley R. Larsen



Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth


The Sunder and Gross Ostrich Archive

WPD An Open Letter PDF FORMAT.pdf42.78 KB


Call them out....individually and collectively name by name and point by dissembling point. These liars have publicly defrauded the people of what was promised them: an impartial and complete examination of the "collapses" of the THREE high rises on 911....
They have misused public funds and wasted time with their lies, lies which indirectly supported more wars and loss of life all over the globe.

When AE911Truth reaches 1,000 (soon) they could get behind this.

When AE911Truth reaches 1,000 (soon) they could get behind this.

Richard Gage

now uses the figure 1,000!!!
break out the champaign

We're on offense now

Yes, call Sunder and Gross out by name and point out the fraud and malfeasance of NIST. Take it boldly to the Inspector General at the Commerce Dept. and to the media. Ads, press releases, and FOIA requests and lawsuits. Play offense, everyone!

Just as FOIA requests against the USGS successfully obtained the images of the melted molybdenum, and recently proof of nanothermite developed in 2001 by the DOE and Los Alamos, AE911Truth is currently mobilizing to get the computer models from NIST via FOIA.

Their fraudulent house of cards is falling down and we're going to pull Sunder and Gross' heads up out of the sand and hopefully put them in handcuffs. Let's enforce the law. This is OUR country.

Here is John Gross

And Shyam Sunder

"Meteorite" and Rudy Quote

I like this extended play clip of the NIST denial too, Joe. It shows the slag, "The Meteorite" and has the revealing Rudy G. quote about, " fires of 2000 degrees F. still burning below the ground." Very interesting considering that the max. temps of building fires is less than that and this was an oxygen-starved pile weeks later.

This is empirically correct, though, because of the nano-chemical reactions that were still going on which were impervious to water or oxygen supply. GZ had been turned into a virtual lake, and 8 weeks later there were still 'hot spots'-- all from office fires???
*This clip is even better than the EP though, imo. For a 2 min. clip it packs punch:

*This was posted by AboveAverageAmerican showing the Los Alamos- Superthermite connection. Great find, AAA!

Suggest referencing formal complaints submitted in April 2009

I submitted two formal complaints on April 7 using the DoC OIG hotline. Both were directed at Dr. Sunder. One pertained to freefall, and the other to high-tech explosives.

I have not been able to get status information on these two complaints. The documentation provided me in the way of receipts provided the absolute minimum of information. The receipts gave me a time stamp, and stated they came from the Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General. But they did not even mention the complaints pertained to NIST or Dr. Sunder.

I have tried to get my Congressman to obtain the case numbers on these complaints, but he has not been cooperative.

Dwain Deets

Like to see results you described

If you could please contact me, I'd like to see the results.

Followup on complaint to DOC Inspector General

I did not continue pursuit on this matter. My congressman was completely uncooperative. Eventually, redistricting placed me in a different congressional district.

I never received anything from the DOC IG. Thus, I don't have a case number if there is one.

This was sent?

Was this sent or just posted here for comment?

If sent, what response was received?

If not sent, why not?

Seems well written and sourced. I'm very curious what the final result was.