NIST_WTC7_comments2
Dirt
WTC & Hutch (JJ)
Erin & Field (erin)
Billiard Balls
Qui Tam Case

Comment
Issue:
1
Listing of Contributors
2
Reference to weather
3
Analysis of the buckling is substantially incomplete.
4
Failure due to thermal expansion in buildings does not happen at low temperatures.
5
Limiting the analysis to properties of the soundtracks to hypothetical blast events is fraudulent
6
Building structure as given in the document(s) is incomplete – therefore the analysis is incomplete.
7
Dimensions and weights of beams must be provided.
8
Aspect ratio of beams
9
Causes for the destruction other than fire and thermal expansion must be properly considered, using all available data.
10
Analysis for the fate of the fuel is incomplete.
11
Incomplete analysis of what was heard.
12
It would be like raining dump trucks.
13
No mention of fire, heat or smoke on floors 4,5,6 casts doubt on NIST's analysis of fire immediately above those floors.
14
Spontaneous disintegration
15
Failure to include magnetometer and failure to properly use seismic data.
16
Analysis is incomplete; sound analysis omitted.
17
242-foot drop?!
18
Incongruence in Collapse time calculation.
19
Selective use of audible data. The analysis of sound is incomplete.
Comment
Issue:
20
Eliminating Controlled Demolition through false choice.
21
Need to explain "disintegration."
22
Effects on WTC7 compared with effects on Bankers Trust
23
Modeling a disintegrating structure

Comment
Issue:
24
How was this possible?
25
A building turns to mud?
26
Incorrect description of Bar/Beam shape
27
Stress-strain curves are shown for tension, but according to the text, the beams were loaded in compression.
28
Observed fuming pattern not properly defined or explained
29
Models given do not match enough of observed phenomena, nor to they explain resulting state of WTC 7

-- Click on figures to enlarge. --



top
Comment 20

Issue: Eliminating Controlled Demolition through false choice.

Location: Page 345-6 of 382 of pdf, (labeled page 683-4 of report), http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment.pdf

D.2 PHASE I: EXPERT RECOMMENDED PREPARATIONS FOR EXPLOSIVELY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION


Phase I identified a single minimum plausible scenario for the explosive demolition of a selected column or truss. This included columns that supported large tributary areas and a critical truss cross-member. The analysis assumed that severance of one of these members could initiate building collapse. For successful demolition of a column, failure was defined as complete severance of the column section, or complete severance of sufficient sections of the flange, web, and cover plates, such that the remaining column section was insufficient to carry the column service loads, or that a lateral deflection of the column section would exceed its section width.

The hypothetical blast scenarios that were addressed fell into two categories:

Those in which there was sufficient time to prepare the structures for an optimum setup prior to demolition. The objective would have been to use the minimum possible amount of explosives in the demolition process. Preliminary cutting of structural members could have been performed.

18. Those in which the demolition was to be performed in the shortest possible time. The objective would have been to set up for demolition during approximately a 6 h time frame, i.e., between the time WTC 7 had been evacuated and the time at which collapse occurred.

For each of the scenario categories, the type and quantity of explosive material (e.g., shaped charges, C4 or other nondirectional explosive materials) required to fail each of the selected column sections was identified. In addition, any special equipment or supplies, and the time required to prepare the column, were identified. For each scenario, expected secondary effects fireballs, noise level, extent of window breakage, and dust expulsion were estimated. Two approaches were considered, in which the column was or was not prepared with preliminary cutting..

Figure 44. [emphasis added]
Page 345-6 of 382 of pdf, (labeled page 683-4 of report), http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment.pdf

Reason for Comment: False choice. Only a particular type of "controlled demolition" was ruled out, which is conventional-controlled demolition with bombs in the building (CCD-BiB). This is a false choice …

All that was considered is the following two categories:
a) Those in which there was sufficient time to prepare the structures for an optimum setup prior to demolition.
b) Those in which the demolition was to be performed in the shortest possible time.

Other evidence now available suggests some sort of high-tech weaponry was used.


 Erin, field effects

Figure 45. This is called "dry thunder."
Source:
Figure 46. Hurricane in Toronto, Canada, October 9-12, 2007.
(10/9-12/07) Source: webpage:


Figure 47. A Tesla coil
Source:
Figure 48. Diagram of a Tesla coil
Source:
Figure 49. Anatomy of a Hurricane
Source: website:


Best track positions for Hurricane Erin, September 2001.

Figure 50. Best track for Hurricane Erin, September 2001. Track during the extratropical stage is based on analyses from the NOAA Marine Prediction Center.
(9/16/01) source:
Figure 51. Hurricane Erin track (atl.ec.gc.ca). According to the Canadian Hurricane Centre (CHC), Hurricane Erin entered the "Response Zone." A hurricane in this zone should presumably trigger a "response."
(9/15/01) Source:

Figure 52. (trimmed) 02102v.jpg (original)
(9/11?/01) Source:
Figure 53. Note, the fence still stands.
Source:



 Weather and Magnetometer Data

Space Weather

The following four charts (Figures 54 to 57) show that there were no solar storms or other significant space-weather events.


Figure 54. Space weather, 9/5/01-9/6/01
source: GOES-20010904_150.jpg
Figure 55. Space weather, 9/7/01-9/8/01
source: GOES-20010905_150.jpg

Figure 56. Space weather, 9/9/01-9/10/01
source: GOES-20010906_150.jpg
Figure 57. Space weather, 9/11/01-9/12/01
source: GOES-20010907_150.jpg

 

Figure 58. nhc data_source:


Magnetometer Data (9/8/01 - 9/12/01)

Magnetometer Readings (normalized), 6 stations (96 hours), 9/8/01-8:00 PM (EDT) - 9/12/01-8:00 PM (EDT)
(data posted at one-minute intervals)


Figure 59. H1 source:

Figure 60. D1 source:


Figure 61. Z1 source:

Figure 62. nhc data_source:

Suggestion for Revision: Inclusion of additional data and analysis which illustrates use of high tech weaponry.




top
Comment 21

Issue: Need to explain "disintegration."

Location: page 89 of 115 of pdf, (labeled page 51 of report) http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

The uncertainties in predicting the precise progression of the collapse sequence increased as the analysis proceeded due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris. The uncertainties deriving from these random processes increasingly influence the deterministic physics-based collapse process. Thus, the details of the progression of horizontal failure and final global collapse were sensitive to the uncertainties in how the building materials (steel, concrete) and building systems and contents interacted, broke up, and disintegrated

Figure 63. [emphasis added]
page 89 of 115 of pdf, (labeled page 51 of report), http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf


Reason for Comment: The use of the word disintegration of building materials in the text should be described. Material volumes of the debris pile would indicated that much of the building mass was in fact disintegrated to the point that it blew away in the form of dust.

By NIST’s own admission, the modeling is an approximation only. While it may simulate some observed features of the destruction, it does not explain the resulting status of Building 7. NIST limited its analysis of hypothetical blast events that are not only nonexhaustive, they are, indeed, extremely limited. NIST is informed that its work in this respect will be challenged as being fraudulent.

Full analyses of the mass remaining in the debris pile should be compared with expected mass and corresponding volume considering the amount of steel and concrete. That very little intact concrete existed in the debris pile and the unusual organization of the steel that remained in the pile should be documented and modeled. That the word disintegration was used in this context, full descriptions should be made and any variances from expected mass and volume of debris remaining should be explained. The report should explain how it is that surrounding buildings were not damaged or the fact that debris in the pile did not even cross the streets, fully remaining with a few feet of the footprint of the building itself. New analyses are required which explain resulting debris pile as well as speed and nature of destruction. Also, sound analysis required.NIST's acknowledgment of disentegration of steel columns, beams and girders that are as massive as those contained in WTC 7 is both accurate, as to what actually happened, and simultaneously, a description of an event that is inconsistent with office fires. Hence, a more complete explanation of how disentegration of so much massive material could have occurred is mandatory.

Suggestion for Revision: NIST has no current explanation for the disentegration it acknowledges occurred. NIST understands that its failure to do so may be a part of the basis for a claim of fraud that will be filed by Dr. Judy Wood.




top

Comment 22

Issue: Effects on WTC7 compared with effects on Bankers Trust

Location: Page 82-4 of 404 of pdf (labeled page 38-40 of report), http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment.pdf


After Debris Impact

After the dust and smoke cleared following the collapse of WTC 1, damage to WTC 7 was observed primarily on the south face near the southwest corner, between Floors 5 to 17 (Section 5.5). Seven exterior columns were severed (six columns on the south face and one column on the west face). The interior damage was not visible but, based on engineering judgment and interview accounts by individuals that were in or around WTC 7, estimates of interior structural damage between the exterior walls and the core were made. Chapter 5 describes the damage observed from photos and videos, and the structural damage in the southwest region is summarized in Section 5.5.3.

The WTC 7 structural damage resulted from debris falling from WTC 1. In a similar fashion, the building located at 130 Liberty Street (referred to as Deutsche Bank or the Bankers Trust building), was damaged by falling exterior panels from WTC 2 as it collapsed. NIST was granted access to inspect floors where damage occurred in the building on 130 Liberty Street on August 21 and 22, 2006. The debris from WTC 2 had penetrated the north face of the 130 Liberty Street building and caused damage to Floors 9 through 22, as shown in Figure 2-30 and Figure 2-31. The north face had severed spandrel beams between exterior columns, with the damage extending into the interior that grew in magnitude as the debris fell. Figure 2-31 shows that the floor beams framing into intact exterior columns remained in place, but the SFRM in the immediate vicinity of the damage was knocked off.

Figure 2-32 shows the extent of the damage that was documented by the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study (McAllister 2002). Immediately after the damage was incurred, the ceilings and column enclosures were still in place, so possible SFRM damage in other parts of the building could not be observed.

Figure 64. [emphasis added]
Page 82 of 404 of pdf (labeled page 38 of report), http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment.pdf

Figure 2—30. Exterior view of damage to the north face of 130 Liberty Street by debris falling from WTC 2. Figure 2—31. Interior view of damage to the north face of 130 Liberty Street by debris falling from WTC 2.
Figure 65. Page 83 of 404 of pdf (labeled page 39 of report), http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment.pdf Figure 66. Page 84 of 404 of pdf (labeled page 40 of report), http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment.pdf

Reason for Comment: It was assumed that falling debris caused the damage in Bankers Trust, but the evidence is not consistent with this conclusion. There has not been a full investigation of the damage to Bankers Trust. There is little debris visible in the open "gash." There is a recognizable "wheatchex" (a unit of three outer columns, three stories tall) presumably from WTC2. This "wheatchex" does not exhibit the level of damage even tool steel might have if grinding out the amount of material that is missing. The damage in Bankers Trust is consistent with molecular dissociation resulting from the use of an energy weapon. This information has been presented to NIST (2/29/08), previously, including the continuing reaction implies that this effect is non-self-quenching, exposing the public to continuing danger. In that correspondence, I noted that "[t]he destruction of WTC7 exhibited nearly all of the same characteristics as the destruction of WTC1&2. Noting that many of the contractors are the same, so it is likely that NIST's ongoing investigation of WTC7 may be dangerously and fraudulently flawed to such a degree that if it is not halted and if the current contractors are not removed, then the problems associated with the cover-up of the fact that the World Trade Center was destroyed by directed energy weapons may continue to multiply." The original correspondence is attached here. [FletcherMcAllister.pdf] [080229_AFFIDAVITtight.pdf]

According to FEMA, there were no fires in this building.

6 Bankers Trust Building

6.1 Introduction

The Bankers Trust building at 130 Liberty Street, also referred to as the Deutsche Bank building, withstood die impact of one or more pieces of column-tree debris raining down from the collapsing south tower (WTC 2). Although the debris sliced through the exterior façade, fracturing spandrel beam connections and exterior columns for a height of approximately 15 stories, the building sustained only localized damage in the immediate path ofthe debris from WTC 2 (hereafter referred to as the impact debris) (Figures 6-1 and 6-2). There were no fires in this building. [emphasis added] The ability of this building to sustain significant structural damage yet arrest the progression of collapse is worthy of thorough study. Unlike WTC 1, 2, and 7, which collapsed completely, the Bankers Trust building provided an opportunity to analyze a structure that suffered a moderate level of damage, to explain the structural behavior, and to verify the analytical methods used. The following sections describe the building structure, the extent of damage, and the computational methods that were used to analyze the structure.

6.2 Building Description

The Bankers Trust building is a steel-frame commercial office structure, designed and constructed circa 1971. Bankers Trust was designed by Shreve, Lamb & Harmon Associates P. C. Architects; Peterson and Brickbauer Associated Architects; the Office of James Rudderman Structural Engineers, and Jaros Baum and Bolles Mechanical and Electrical Engineers. The building measures 560 feet in height with 40 stories above grade and 2 below. It is located directly across Liberty Street from the former site of WTC 2, about 600 feet due south of the southeast corner of WTC 2.

Figure 6-1

North face of Bankers Trust building with Impact damage

between floors 8 and 23.

Photo credit: FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Figure 67. Page 1 of 16 of pdf (labeled page 6-1 of FEMA report), http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch6.pdf


Figure 68. (Fig6-10.) from the FEMA report . This beam shriveled up and has see-through holes in it, hanging in the gash/opening of Bankers Trust. Source: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch6.pdf, Image187fema.gif

Figure 69. In buckling a beam deforms into (a) a half sine wave, p , or (b) a full sine wave, or 2 p . The random deformation in (c) is not associated with buckling. Figure 70. A close-up view of an I-beam in Figure 68. Source: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch6.pdf, FEMA6-10_ccc.jpg

Figure 71. Figure 6-8, Failed shear connection of beam web to column web.
Page 8 of 16 of pdf (labeled page 6-8 of FEMA report), http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch6.pdf fema403_ch608p8a.jpg

This steel connection from Banker's Trust is very deteriorated.

Suggestion for Revision: NIST acknowledges that its comparison of effects on WTC 7 with those occurring to the Bankers Trust building may be challenged as being fraudulent by Dr. Judy Wood.




top
Comment 23

Issue: Modeling a disintegrating structure

Location: page 108 of 170 of pdf (labeled page 56 of report), http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9A_for_public_comment.pdf

Figure 72.
page 108 of 170 of pdf (labeled page 56 of report), http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9A_for_public_comment.pdf

The uncertainties in predicting the precise progression of the collapse sequence increased as the analysis proceeded due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris. The uncertainties deriving from these random processes increasingly influence the deterministic physics-based collapse process. Thus, the details of the progression of horizontal failure and final global collapse were sensitive to the uncertainties in how the building materials (steel, concrete) and building systems and contents interacted, broke up, and disintegrated

Figure 73. [emphasis added]
page 89 of 115 of pdf, (labeled page 51 of report), http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

Reason for Comment: Thermal expansion does not cause tensile failure of beams that are expanding with end constraints. This drawing above does not show buckled beams. It shows beams with gaps in them. Apparently this is how ANSYS illustrates buckled beams, representing a reduced stiffness. If the stiffness is reduced, then the force this beam is able to apply on the end connections due to "thermal expansion" is also reduced. That is, if a beam has buckled, the amount of axial force it will apply is greatly reduced. If one beam buckles, it reduces the constraint on neighboring beams, reducing their stress. So, it is difficult to imagine how every beam on one floor could have buckled, as is shown in the diagram above.

If the beams were actually disintegrating, as stated elsewhere in the NIST report, the disintegrating structure could be modeled using "buckled beams." If this is what was done, this should be clearly stated in the report.

Samples of steel apparently recovered from WTC7 show evidence of molecular dissociation from partial disintegration. Some of these are shown in the figures below. The FEMA report implied these came from WTC7.

The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel (source)

"Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings 'perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.' The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal."


Figure 74. This piece of steel thought to be from WTC7 appears partially disintegrated. (Figure C-2. Closeup view of eroded wide-flange beam section.)

(2002) source:

Figure 75. This piece of steel thought to be from WTC7 appears partially disintegrated. (Figure C-1. Eroded A36 wide-flange beam.)

(2002) source:


Figure 76. This piece of steel thought to be from WTC7 appears partially disintegrated. (Figure C-3. Mounted and polished severely thinned section removed from the wide-flange beam shown in Figure C-1.)
(2002) Source
Figure 77. "A Beam Removed From the World Trade Centerthe Site Most Probably From Building 7" (Ref: Astaneh-Asl, 2002b)
(?/??/01-02) Source


Suggestion for Revision: Our model of the collapse of the building predicted all the horizontal beams to buckle at the same time, or buckle individually without relieving constraints on the other beams.

[Or, in the alternative]

We modeled the disintegrating structure using buckled beams.








 Continue to next page.
 




Continue to next page.

pdf documents:
080915_NIST_comments.pdf
3.947 MB
080229_FletcherMcAllister.pdf
0.018 MB
080229_AFFIDAVITtight.pdf
4.893 MB
080229_MOL57.pdf
0.414 MB



Dirt
WTC & Hutch (JJ)
Erin & Field (erin)
Billiard Balls
Qui Tam Case


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this webpage are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This webpage has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.

© 2006-2008 Judy Wood and the author above. All rights reserved.