(NIST welcomes comments on the draft report and recommendations-available online at http://wtc.nist.gov-received [1] 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 [2] regarding the conflation of 9/11 Truth sites like AE911truth.org with terrorism. -rep.)
To Dr. Shyam Sunder et al
WTC Technical Information Repository
Attn: Stephen Cauffman,
NIST, 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 8611,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20899-8610.
Dear Sirs:
I have examined the documents 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.
Your theory is essentially based 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. 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.
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 (which has never happened before 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 from the sixth floor to the eighth floor in a stairwell in WTC 7. Help came twice and ran away when each tower collapsed. 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. This could not have happened from 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 "blowing 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 a smoke-screen. There is a causal relationship between "and we made that decision" and "we watched the building fall down." The latter follows the former. Their decision resulted in the fall of WTC 7. This could only take place with controlled demolition.*
2. When Barry Jennings and Hest arrived at the OEM, Floor 23, in WTC 7 around 9 am, they found it empty. Why? $13 million dollars 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 he received a phone call, telling him he had to "get out of there." Why? The only possible 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
In any crime investigation, the behavior of witnesses and possible suspects is of vital interest, especially where it concerns the removal, destruction, and suppression of evidence.
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. Case closed.
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. Again, fraud. Case closed.
(#3 is missing from the draft sent in to 911blogger)
4. Omission from the 9/11 Commission report of any mention of WTC 7 also points to a cover up. Again, case closed.
5. NIST's failure to seriously consider other causes besides fire for the building collapses is a sure sign of government interference in a scientific process, and points to a cover up. The standards for fire investigations call for tests for explosives. No such tests were made. Again, cover up. Case closed.
6. The reluctance of the administration to investigate 9/11, the stonewalling, the closed door testimony, all point to a cover up. The entire 9/11 "official" story is a litany of impossible and improbable events, accompanied by brazen suppression of evidence.
It is impossible to understand your abysmal "scientific" work unless you have been directed to propose and promulgate your "fire" theory by the government, whose agency you are. While your theory may serve the present government well, in a political sense, it does not serve the cause of truth, science, or the people of this country and of the world who desire to know the truth and deserve to have it. It does not serve the victims of 9/11 and their families. It does not serve you as individuals who must now live and be known by this piece of pseudo-scientific nonsense.
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 control 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, leads to general mayhem in the steel building construction industry. For this reason, I doubt whether anyone there will pay any attention to it. In addition, a vast and growing number of citizens of this and other countries are now on the march toward a truthful accounting of 9/11. The chances are that both you and your current handlers will be repudiated by history as criminals and their accomplices, and will be scorned by future generations for the shameful deception you are perpetrating.
Sincerely yours,
John D. Wyndham, PhD (Physics)
* 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." http://911review.com/errors/wtc/pullit.html [3]
No comments:
Post a Comment