This is a collection of breaking news on the 9/11 front.
PRESS RELEASE: Reports on Collapse of World Trade Center Don't Add Up, Says Former Federal Employee
AE911Truth founder and CEO Richard Gage, AIA, provides an overview of the evidence related to the collapse of WTC 7 on December 16, 2016, at the BSA Space, home of the Boston Society of Architects.
Gage’s hour-long presentation at the BSA Space was AE911Truth’s first-ever in-person continuing education course on the collapse of WTC 7. More than a dozen architects received one learning unit for their participation.
On December 16, 2016, at the BSA Space (home of the Boston Society of Architects), Dr. Leroy Hulsey, PE, chair of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, gives an update on his WTC 7 computer modeling study and its preliminary finding that fire could not and did not cause the building's collapse on 9/11. He also outlines the next steps of his research, which will include an exploration of the failures required to reproduce the observed symmetrical, free-fall behavior of the building. For more information, visit http://AE911Truth.org and http://WTC7Evaluation.org.
Video: Dr. Leroy Hulsey Testifies before Panel of Attorneys
Video: Dr. MacQueen Presents Analysis of WTC Eyewitness Accounts
Video: Attorney Daniel Sheehan Gives Sage Advice on Bringing a 9/11 Civil Action
FRAUD EXPOSED IN NIST WTC 7 REPORTS — All things being equal, the fire would have spread consistently. But the NIST computer model inexplicably bypassed the offices to the southwest of column 79, burned around column 79 on the east side, and then, two hours later, burned the offices to the southwest of column 79.
Editor’s Note: To this day, most people, including many architects and engineers, are not aware that a third skyscraper, World Trade Center Building 7, mysteriously collapsed a few hours after the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. The official report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on this building’s collapse has been challenged by many reputable and credentialed technical professionals. They point out that the NIST analysis has not undergone the rigors of scientific peer review — the typical pathway for validating significant scientific theories. Chris Sarns’ research appears in Dr. David Ray Griffin’s book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7. Sarns has been deeply involved in the work of AE911Truth, where he provides his expertise on WTC 7. The studies in this five-part series, written for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and originally published between May and September 2013, represent years of work that Sarns did in unraveling some of the most glaring inconsistencies and outright frauds in the NIST report on World Trade Center 7. He demonstrates that NIST’s theory of a fire-induced collapse of Building 7 is faulty and misleading. The destruction of this skyscraper on September 11 was truly unprecedented in the history of high-rise buildings. Part 1 of Sarns' series (below) was first published in May 2013, when close to 2,000 architects and engineers at AE911Truth were demanding a new investigation. By December 2016, the number of A/E petition-signers had swelled to nearly 2,750.
The timing of the fire on Floor 12 exposes NIST's false claim that fire led to the collapse. Below, the four images in the middle column are photographs taken of World Trade Center 7 at four different times in the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The four graphics in the left column are my approximations, using the photographs as a guide, of where—and at what times—a fire was actually burning on Floor 12. And the four graphics in the right column are NIST's ANSYS computer model of where the fires were burning in the building at the same four times. “Note that only window glass breaking times were prescribed in the fire model. The observed fire activity gleaned from the photographs and video were not a model input.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, page 378 [PDF page 444] NIST will not release the input data because doing so, it claims, might “jeopardize public safety.”
MAGICAL THERMAL EXPANSION
FRAUD EXPOSED IN NIST WTC 7 REPORTS — NIST heated the floor beams, but not the slab. Since concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel, leaving this expansion out of the calculations of the failure of the shear studs is fraudulent.
NIST used numerous unscientific methods and fraudulent inputs to get the key girder to fail in its computer simulation. For example, NIST arbitrarily added 10% to the temperature results of its fire dynamics simulation (FDS). “Case A used the temperature data as obtained from the FDS simulation. Case B increased the Case A gas temperatures by 10 percent.” — NCSTAR 1A, page 32 [PDF page 74] “[O]nly the fire-induced damage produced by Case B temperatures was carried forward as the initial condition for the building collapse analysis.” — NCSTAR 1A, page 36 [PDF page 78] To get the shear studs on the floor beams to fail, NIST had to assume high steel temperatures. It applied the heat in 1½ seconds over the entire northeast part of Floor 13. This faulty method of calculating temperatures, though, does not allow for the reality of heat dispersal or for the inevitable beam sagging. Interestingly, NIST's model heated the floor beams but not the concrete slab. Since concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel, leaving this expansion out of the calculations of the shear studs failure is fraudulent.
MISSING SHEAR STUDS - Shear studs are used to keep steel floor beams and girders in place; they impart stability and strength to buildings. But in its November 2008 final report, NIST reworded its comments on shear studs to give the appearance that none were used on the floor girders.
NIST's final report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, issued in November 2008, has many flaws, including blatant fraud. If we go back to its June 2004 Progress Report (and in the actual shop drawings*), NIST referenced shear studs, which are used to keep steel floor beams and girders in place and to impart stability and strength to buildings. But in its final report four years later, NIST reworded its comments on shear studs to give the appearance that none were used on the floor girders. Why would NIST make this fraudulent statement? To know the answer, one needs to understand NIST's collapse theory, which goes like this: 1. The key girder between column 79 and the exterior wall failed at Floor 13. 2. That failure caused the collapse of Floors 13 through 6. 3. Column 79, now unsupported laterally by these floors, buckled and brought down the entire building. Obviously, this scenario posited by NIST sounds more credible if the key girder isn't being held firmly in place with shear studs. So, then, by magically omitting the shear studs, NIST validates its theory that the key girder failed.
FICTITIOUS DEBRIS DAMAGE - Obviously, debris large enough to create a 10-story gouge, one-fourth to one-third the width of the building, would have landed in the first floor lobby, along with everything it brought down, including the third-floor lobby.
I first noticed the conundrum that suggested that the “10-story gouge” in the side of WTC 7 could not have actually existed back on September 6, 2006, while I was “debating” with Ryan Mackey in an online forum: See Conundrum in June 2004 Progress Report. NIST's first report, published two years earlier, referred to the “middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground.” It then went on to read: “No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed.” — NIST June 2004 Progress Report, Appendix L, page 18 [PDF page 907] See June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST SP 1000-5). Obviously, debris large enough to create a 10-story gouge, one-fourth to one-third the width of the building, would have landed in the first floor lobby, along with everything it brought down, including the third-floor lobby. NIST depicted this “damage” in the graphic on page 23 as “Possible region of impact damage” and again on pages 31 and 32 [PDF pages 920 and 921] as “Approximate region of impact damage.”
Also, 9/11 researcher Winston Smith found another statement that conflicted with NIST's 10-story gouge theory in the report on WTC 7 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in Chapter 5 on page 20. It read: “According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner.” See Federal Emergency Management Agency, Chapter 5, WTC 7. Later I found still two more quotes that were in conflict with NIST's theory of the 10-story gouge.
NON-EXISTENT DIESEL FUEL FIRE - If there were a fire in this room, smoke would be pouring out through the cooling air exhaust vents. If the louvers were closed, a fire would not have sufficient oxygen to burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.
As early as May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) acknowledged the problem with the diesel fuel fire hypothesis for the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, writing: “Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis is needed to resolve this issue.” — FEMA, Chapter 5, page 31 Nonetheless, in its June 2004 Progress Report, NIST continued the diesel fuel fire hypothesis, despite having the data that proved such a fire did not exist in the building: “The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5.” — NIST Progress Report, Appendix L, page 51 [PDF page 940] NIST's Shyam Sunder misinformed Popular Mechanics in its March 2005 article “Debunking the 9/11 Myths” by telling the writers that there was a fire on Floor 5 of WTC 7 that lasted up to seven hours. There was no fire reported on that floor and no reason to think there was one. The magazine wrote: “Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. 'There was no firefighting in WTC 7,' Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: 'Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel for a long period of time.'” A month later, in April 2005, NIST published an interim report on WTC 7 that said essentially the same thing: “This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5.” — NIST Part IIC, April 5, 2005, page 38 Even as late as the first quarter of 2007, the debate about diesel fuel fire was still raging, with talk of 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel playing a role in the destruction of WTC 7. Yet no one had bothered to research the details of the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.