A White Paper on NIST's Omissions, Distortions, and Fraud

AE911Truth Editor's Note: In recent years, various members of the AE911Truth team have been working on a white paper titled “Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports.” Last month they finally completed the document. Its 25 concise points offer the most convincing proof that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the September 11, 2001, destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings were unscientific and fraudulent. The authors of "The 25 Points" designed the document to provide material that would compel the convening of a grand jury. Whether or not a grand jury is ever impaneled in any jurisdiction, though, readers of this white paper have the duty and privilege of acting as a virtual grand jury in all jurisdictions. After weighing the evidence meticulously laid out in "The 25 Points," readers can, by their resulting actions, help determine whether there will one day be a new, fully funded, truly independent, wholly transparent, and unimpeachably honest investigation of 9/11.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

Below is a series of twenty-five provable points which clearly demonstrate that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent. Therefore NIST itself – including its lead authors, Shyam Sunder and John Gross - should be investigated.

Table of Contents

WTC 7 – THE THIRD SKYSCRAPER

1. OMISSION OF GIRDER STIFFENERS SHOWN ON FRANKEL DRAWING #9114
2. OMISSION OF THREE LATERAL SUPPORT BEAMS ON THE 13TH FLOOR G3005 BEAM
3. WTC 7 COLLAPSE AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION IS NOT EXPLAINED
4. VIDEOS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 BETRAY NIST’S COMPUTER MODEL
5. CLAIMS OF INVESTIGATING CONTROLLED DEMOLITION WITHOUT TESTING FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUES
6. CHANGES OF STATEMENTS ON COMPOSITE BEAMS AND SHEAR STUD USE BETWEEN DRAFTS
7. REFUSING OF FOIA REQUESTS
ALL THREE BUILDINGS
8. NEGLIGENCE IN SALVAGING STEEL
9. IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
10. INVOLVEMENT IN NOT SAVING STEEL FOR INVESTIGATION
11. FIRE SIMULATIONS AND DURATIONS ARE EXAGGERATED
12. NO DISCUSSION OF THE MOLTEN METAL FOUND IN THE RUBBLE OF THE THREE COLLAPSED BUILDINGS.
13. REFUSAL TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE
14. FAILURE TO FOLLOW STANDARD FIRE INVESTIGATION PROTOCOL

THE TWIN TOWERS

15. STRIPPING OF THE FIRE PROOFING IS EXAGGERATED
16. PRE-COLLAPSE STEEL TEMPERATURES ARE EXAGGERATED
17. TESTED FLOOR ASSEMBLIES DID NOT FAIL
18. INITIATION OF COLLAPSE – “INWARD BOWING” WAS INDUCED ARTIFICIALLY
19. COLUMN STRESS DUE TO LOAD REDISTRIBUTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE
20. NO EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR HORIZONTAL PROPAGATION OF COLLAPSE
21. WTC 1 TILT OCCURRED AFTER SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE FOR AT LEAST TWO STORIES
22. NO JOLT – CONTINUOUS ACCELERATION OF COLLAPSE WAS IGNORED
23. NO PILE DRIVER IS OBSERVED IN VIDEOS
24. COLUMN LOADS WERE CALCULATED FOR WORST CASE, NOT ACTUAL IN-SERVICE LOADS
25. MOLTEN METAL OBSERVED POURING OUT OF THE CORNER OF WTC 2 REMAINS UNRESOLVED

WTC 7 – THE THIRD SKYSCRAPER

1. OMISSION OF GIRDER STIFFENERS SHOWN ON FRANKEL DRAWING #9114

Technical Statement: NIST maintains that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire acting upon the 13th floor A2001 girder between columns 79 and 44 and the beams framing into it from the east. They said that the beams expanded by 5.5” (revised in June 2012 to 6.25”), broke the girder erection bolts, and pushed this girder off its column 79 seat. This girder fell to floor 12, which then precipitated a cascade of floor failures from floor 12 down to floor 5, and column 79 then became unsupported laterally, causing it to buckle. It is then said that column 79's buckling caused the upper floors to cascade down, which started a ...

Read More

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) maintained in its August 2008 Final Draft Report, and the associated technical briefing, that WTC Building 7 took 40% longer to collapse than if it had been in free-fall.

NIST Project Leader Shyam Sunder explained that WTC 7 could not have come down in free-fall, because there was resistance to the fall provided by the steel structure underneath. But a determined high school physics teacher in central California, David Chandler, demonstrated that NIST was using fraudulently manipulated data to try to show a slower rate of collapse.

David Chandler - "There is ample evidence, from both witnesses and recordings, of explosions associated with the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7). NIST sidestepped investigating explosions and explosives by setting up an artificially high threshold of interest.

They swept aside any testimony or recordings of explosions that would not register 130-140 dB one kilometer away. They established this criterion using RDX (one of the loudest explosives) in a scenario that produced a far higher sound level than other possible uses of explosives to bring down the building. Then they turned around and used sound level as the sole criterion for deciding whether the use of explosives was a credible hypothesis. By this maneuver, they sidestepped investigating testimony of explosives or possible evidence of explosive residues. This is just one more instance of fraudulent behavior on the part of the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center disaster."

WTC Building 7 in Free-fall

NIST, when confronted publicly with evidence produced by Chandler, finally admitted in its November 2008 Final Report that WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds in free-fall, but they brushed off this newly acknowledged fact as being "consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis," despite Sunder's earlier statement. Thus, the NIST simulation and analysis represented a mufti-million-dollar effort to avoid explaining what really happened.

Physics teacher David Chandler uses simple scientific software to understand and show the free-fall demolition of WTC7, WTC 7, Building 7.

Published on Feb 16, 2013

In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at free fall, but the cover-up was transparent. In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged free fall, but couched it in a bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. This video displays the brazenness of the NIST WTC7 cover-up.

[The WTC7 series has elicited a number of questions from people unclear on the details of how I did the measurements, compared to how NIST did them and how the representatives of NIST described their measurements. I have therefore created a WTC7 Measurement FAQ page: http://www.911speakout.org/WTC7-Measu...

I will also use this FAQ as a place of reference

for other questions that arise as well.]

Please watch the following video evidence and draw you own conclusions.