The NIST World Trade Center Report: A New Standard for Deception Kevin Ryan 911 Truth Conference: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future Chicago, IL June 4, 2006
Introduction I’m a former manager at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), fired for publicly questioning the October 2004 draft NIST WTC report NIST* is a government agency, reporting to Bush cabinet member Gutierrez (Commerce). The director of NIST is also a Presidential appointee NIST’s WTC report is a product of the Bush Administration (i.e. Bush Science) *National Institute of Standards and Technology
“Bush Science” The Bush Administration has been “deliberately and systematically distorting scientific fact in the service of policy goals” Open letter from 60 prominent scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates “We found a serious pattern of undermining science by the Bush Administration” Union of Concerned Scientists “[We] found numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings” House Committee on Government Reform
Important WTC collapse considerations • No tall buildings have ever collapsed from fire, but on 9/11, we’re told there were three • No building exhibiting all the characteristics of demolition has ever NOT been a demolition • 99.7% of steel evidence destroyed despite outraged cries from public and fire experts • More than a year passed before full investigation began
Demo remembers The collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolition Contractors, “It cascaded down like an implosion” “It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building” -- Ronald Hamburger, structural engineer and contributor to FEMA and NIST reports Official investigations never considered demolition
Early support for the official story “Experts” said jet fuel fires melted the steel • BBC (Chris Wise, etc.) • Scientific American (Eduardo Kausel) • NOVA video (Matthys Levy) • Henry Koffman from USC • Tom Mackin from Univ. of Illinois • The New Scientist Temperatures exaggerated • National Geographic Today - 2,900 F • A&E /History Channel video – 2500 F
Jet fuel fires melted steel?• Steel melts at ~2800 F• Jet fuel fires burn at maximum of ~1500 F unless in special combustion chamber• Gas temps are not steel temps• Thermodynamic calculations suggest steel temperatures in impact zones could have reached maximum of 600 F
Where are the real experts? Our nation’s air defenses don’t stand down Terrorists don’t come back to life after stealing our freedoms Tall buildings do not collapse from fire Because these are unique events, there are no experts on these subjects
But there is always an official explanation for terrorist events Disturbing questions about the OKC Murrah Building bombing • Survivors reported multiple explosions • Many media reports and witness accounts of un- detonated bombs left in building • FBI confiscated videos and would not release them • Experts said demolition charges required Official story stuck with one guy, one truck bomb • Small group of engineers provided report
Official “investigations” into the collapse of the WTC buildings ASCE FEMA BPAT • Turned ASCE investigation into an “assessment” • Report released May 2002 Silverstein/Weidlinger • report released October 2002 NIST • report released September 2005
ASCE Team = Murrah Building TeamInitial ASCE team OKC Murrah buildingleaders (9/14/01) report authors• Gene Corley • Gene Corley• Charles Thornton • Charles Thornton• Paul Mlakar • Paul Mlakar• Mete Sozen • Mete Sozen• Other volunteers ASCE says there are 1.5 million US engineers. Why so few when it comes to terrorism?
Pre-determined conclusions• Gene Corley -- knew once the jets hit the building that the WTC would collapse as it did, “I just didn’t know when it was going to happen”, said Corley (reported by St. Petersburg Times)• Charles Thornton -- "Karl, we all know what caused the collapse." (From Karl Koch’s book Men of Steel)• Shankar Nair -- "Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center.” (Chicago Tribune September 19, 2001)
The first official leaders Gene Corley in charge of ASCE investigation NYC put Thornton-Tomasetti in charge of site Richard Tomasetti (Thornton’s partner) “cleared” the decision to recycle the steel, later saying had he “known the direction that investigations into the disaster would take, he would have adopted a different stance.” Anyone smell a rat?
Restrictions on ASCE investigation No access to blueprints Not allowed to ask for help from public Team members threatened with dismissal for speaking to press No access to steel until first week of October FEMA obstruction
FEMA BPAT ASCE expanded and was named FEMA BPAT • John Gross, NIST engineer with oil and gas history • Therese McAllister, Greenhorne and O’Mara (G&O) • Other government contractors (Arup, Hughes) When FEMA took over, $1 million was allocated, but only $100,000 was spent by December At the same time, Bush was telling us “It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month…”
By January, it was a half-baked farce• Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering magazine, said the “official investigation…is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.”• Dick Cheney called Senate leader Tom Daschle and asked him to “limit the scope and overall review of what happened [on 9/11]”, claiming resources would be pulled from the War on Terrorism. President Bush met with Daschle privately and asked him to limit the investigation.
Meanwhile Astaneh-Asl, a lone scientist working on a National Science Foundation study, got access to the steel before the ASCE/FEMA team “The impact did nothing to this building” (reported by CNN) “So now we know, the column did not fail, it was a failure of the floor in most cases” (reported by Wired)
Who would design a building for plane crashes but forget the jet fuel fires?• Eduardo Kausel – The WTC buildings were designed to withstand Boeing 707 impacts but were “never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next – a key design omission.”• Loring Knoblauch (CEO of UL) – the jet fuel fires were not “reasonably foreseeable.”• What? How would the planes get to the buildings? Who would really do this?
Not the WTC’s design Engineer• Towers designed by John Skilling• Skilling had this to say in 1993 when asked if he considered plane crashes in his design. “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.” City in the Sky, Glanz and Lipton
Where’s the fire?Windsor building, Madrid, February 2005 Twin towers shortly after WTC2 hit
ASCE / FEMA findings April 2002 NOVA video by commentators Corley and Thornton Fireproofing easily blown off Floors collapsed Columns buckled outward May 2002 final FEMA report • “a pancake-type of collapse of successive floors”
June 2002 – NIST drafts plan National Institute of Standards and Technology • Director is Presidential appointee • Repository for national reference standards First meeting included “Public” comments by • Gene Corley • Richard Tomasetti • Shankar Nair • Other contributors to official reports
FEMA authors become NIST authors FEMA Chapter 1 authors • Therese McAllister: co-wrote NIST report 1-6 and 1-7 • John Gross: co-wrote NIST report 1-6 and 1-7 • Ronald Hamburger: NIST contributor FEMA Chapter 2 authors • Ronald Hamburger: see above • William Baker: NIST contributor, Freedom tower • Harold Nelson: co-wrote NIST report 1-5 and 1-7 FEMA chapter 5 authors (WTC 7) • Ramon Gilsanz: co-wrote NIST report 1-6F • Harold Nelson: see above
Oct 2002 - Silverstein / Weidlinger report Corley and Thornton-Tomasetti involved in study to establish Silverstein insurance claim Report results • No floor failure of any kind • Column failure only • Directly contradicts FEMA report, NOVA video and most other experts (e.g. Astaneh-Asl) Apparently floor failure would have meant design failure and therefore “one event”
They knew from the start what happened? ”Experts” Towering Inferno • Steel melted FEMA • Floor failure: “A pancake-type of collapse of successive floors” Silverstein/Weidlinger • Column failure only NIST • External column failure from sagging floors and softened core columns ,etc…leading to pile driver collapse (TNRAT – They’ll Never Read All This theory) TNRAT
Demo points out characteristics of demolition Sudden onset Dust clouds Straight down Horizontal ejections (squibs) Nearly free-fall speed Demolition rings Total collapse Sounds of explosions Sliced steel Pools of molten steel Pulverization of concrete All supported by photographic evidence and eyewitness testimonies
Sept 2005 - The NIST WTC Report 42 sub-reports and 10,000 pages Only for Twin Towers Like others, focused only on political story TNRAT Same people as FEMA
NFPA 921 used? Standard for fire investigation Sec 6-5: Important to remember that conflict of interest should be avoided • NIST used specialists/contractors who were dependent on government contracts or on the official story itself Sec 12-4: Unusual residues …could arise from thermite, magnesium or other pyrotechnic materials • NIST report does not mention FEMA’s puzzling sulfur residue
Our focus NIST’s stated goals • Goal 1 – Why and How three buildings collapsed • Goal 3 – What design factors should have prevented this? NIST’s approach and final story • 5 methods to investigate • 7 steps to collapse
NIST’s investigation methodsA. Review of documentsB. Interviews with eyewitnessesC. Analysis of steelD. Laboratory testsE. Computer Simulations
A. NIST’s review of documents Reports of original design claims? • No, many relevant claims not mentioned Fire resistance test data (e.g. UL test documents)? • No, documents came up missing Skilling’s fire resistance analysis? • No, documents missing
Original design claims “The World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities.” For the perimeter columns (83% of total columns), “live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.” One “could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction.” All quotes from Engineering News-Record, 1964
A. Were the WTC steel components tested for fire resistance? NIST said they found no documents, yet states the buildings were rated as Class 1B (3 hours for columns and 2 hours for floors) Underwriters Laboratories’ CEO -- UL tested the steel to NYC code (meaning 40 years ago) Port Authority -- “there are no test records in our files” ASTM E119 is used for testing both steel components and floor assemblies
A. UL comments on testing the WTC steel September 2001 • Loring Knoblauch, UL’s CEO, told staff that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC November 2003 • I asked Knoblauch in writing about UL’s involvement, and he responded in December confirming details. “We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on, and it did beautifully.” “As we do not do follow-up service on this kind of product, we can give an opinion only on the test sample which was indeed properly coated.” “We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met [the NYC code] requirements and exceeded them.”
A. Our “Public Safety Guardian” (UL) lying? August 2004 • UL performed tests of WTC floor models • Floors barely affected and didn’t collapse • Loring Knoblauch resigned suddenly October 2004 • NIST report update showed contradictions November 2004 • My letter to NIST became public • UL quickly backtracked, saying “No evidence” any firm tested the steel They played only a “limited” role in investigation
B. NIST’s performance on interviews NIST started planning for eyewitness interviews in April 2003 (7 months after start of investigation, and 19 months after 9/11) By October, still no NIST interviews and no NIST access to NYC interviews NYC finally agreed to allow NIST access to original interviews by December 2003 …but only in NYC offices (sound familiar?)
B. Eyewitness interviews not used Paramedic Daniel Rivera – “[Did] you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop?’…I thought it was that.” Witness Timothy Burke – “the building popped, lower than the fire…I was going oh, my God, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.” Firefighter Edward Cachia – “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. We originally thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives…” Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory -- “I thought…that I saw low-level flashes…[at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”
B. Eyewitness interviews not used Firefighter Richard Banaciski – “It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all around like a belt, all these explosions.” Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick – “My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.” Battalion Chief Brian Dixon – “the lowest floor of the fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives all around it because… everything blew out on the one floor.” Firefighter Kenneth Rogers – “there was an explosion in the south tower…I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. [It] looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing.”
C. Analysis of steel Most of the steel evidence destroyed • Tomasetti decision (Thornton’s partner) • 236 samples saved for testing (0.3%) NIST tests • Paint test indicated low steel temps (480 F ) “despite pre-collapse exposure to fire” • Microstructure test showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values
NIST comments before and After Before steel temperature analysis (12/02/03) • “Regions of impact and fire damage emphasized in selection of steel pieces.” After steel temperature analysis (final report) • “None of the samples were from zones where [high] heating was predicted.”
D. Laboratory tests Tests to prove loss of fireproofing? • Fifteen rounds from a shotgun Workstation burn tests • Gas temperatures, not steel temperatures • Used double the average amount of jet fuel • Used “Over-ventilation” UL floor model tests evaluated Pancake Theory
Pancake Theory• “I could see it in my mind’s eye: The fire burned until the steel was weakened and the floors above collapsed, starting a chain reaction of gravity, floor falling upon floor upon floor, clunk – clunk – clunk, the load gaining weight and momentum by the nanosecond, unstoppable. Once enough floors collapsed, the exterior walls and the core columns were no longer laterally supported and folded in.” -- Karl Koch (from Koch’s book Men of Steel)
WTC floor model tests by UL (Aug 2004) Used less fireproofing than was known to exist in WTC1, and then reduced fireproofing further Used “maximum load” (i.e. applied doubled the weight known to have been on floors) Heated floors according to ASTM E119 Minimal floor sagging No floor collapse “The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th.”
NIST comments before and after Before UL floor tests • “[Tests will] determine the fire rating of typical WTC floor systems under both as-built and specified conditions” After UL floor tests • “The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses”
E. Computer Simulations Input parameters could be tweaked “Realistic” parameters tossed in favor of “More severe” parameters Animations generated to “compare with observed events”
E. NIST’s computer simulated “animations” Does your future depend on these cartoons?
NIST’s investigative practices were deceptive and unscientific Documents needed just happened to be missing Eyewitnesses to demolition characteristics were ignored Physical tests that disproved pre-determined conclusions were downplayed or ignored Entire theory is built on fudged, inaccessible computer simulations TNRAT
NIST’s Final, Computer-Based Story1. The aircraft severed “a number of columns”2. Loads were redistributed (from -20% to +25%)3. Insulation (fireproofing) was widely dislodged4. High temperatures softened columns and floors5. Some floors began to sag6. Sagging floors pulled exterior columns inward causing them to buckle7. Instability spread around entire building“Global collapse ensued”
1. How many columns were severed? NIST now admits only a small percentage of columns were severed • 14% in WTC1 • 15% in WTC2 But since one “could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction”, we know the buildings could withstand > 25% column loss without a problem.
2. How much load was re-distributed? NIST says loads on some columns were decreased (as much as 20%) and other loads were increased (up to 25%). But again, since the original design claims were that, “live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs”, these columns should have supported the extra load and much, much more So far, no reason to even suspect collapse
3. Fireproofing widely dislodged? “The towers would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires if the insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” -- NIST What does “widely dislodged” mean?
3. NIST must have done extensive testing to prove fireproofing was widely dislodged! No, they shot 15 rounds from a shotgun at non- representative samples in a plywood box (were they in a hurry?) No evidence that Boeing 767 would transform into so many shotgun blasts (many thousands would be needed) Shotgun test actually proved fireproofing could not have been widely dislodged because the energy was simply not available
No energy left to dislodge fireproofing NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1 • Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns & floors* • Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing • For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had > 6000 sq meters of surface area *Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT
4. How hot could the steel have become? NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires. This would have provided 590,000 MJ of energy. Office furnishings in the impact zone would have provided 490,000 MJ of energy. Using masses and specific heats for materials heated, a maximum temperature in the impact zone can be calculated. The result is less than 600 degrees F • Assuming fuel burnt with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left the impact zone, that no heat escaped by conduction, and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.
Steel Temperatures Discussed (F)30002500200015001000500 0 Paint test Calculated Steel at half Steel Forged ASTM E119 TV Program Steel melts strength
Review NIST Story and Problems Column breakage (14%) Can lose an additional 30 weakened building, then or more before challenging external columns saw up design claims; external to 25% increases in total columns designed to load withstand 2000% increases in live load Fireproofing “widely No evidence that Boeing dislodged” 767 would transform into thousands of shotgun blasts; no energy available to dislodge fireproofing High steel temps Tests and calculations required for long time show steel temps were way too low
5. Some floors began to sag? Only very slight sagging is visible in NIST photos from UL tests (and no collapse) After two hours* in high temp furnace, the deck of 35 ft floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle, and the major joist parts did not sag at all NIST’s computer turned this into dramatic 42 inch sagging, with joists bending downward severely *Remember, WTC2 collapsed after only 56 minutes and WTC1 fires on south face had only ~ 45 minutes
6. How did the sagging floors pull exterior columns inward causing them to buckle? Over 30 columns would have to be pulled in to challenge design claim What new force did a few inches of deck sagging apply to those 30+ columns? NIST says 14 kips per truss seat were applied but does not adequately explain how this challenged the designed axial load of 1174 kips per column What tests did NIST do to prove inward buckling, and was the application of the results consistent?
The triple double bare steel computer result “An exterior wall section (9 columns wide and 9 floors high) was found to bow inward when floor connections applied an inward force.” (computer result for one case out of nine) Same report says sagging area only 5 floors high! NIST had to exaggerate temperatures (1300 F), apply these temps for 90 minutes, strip all fireproofing, and then double the height of the inward pull zone to produce even a hint of inward bowing from fire* *Note: There are other ways to produce bowing and buckling of columns – just ask Demo
7. Instability spread around entire building perimeter? Buildings fell at nearly free-fall speed. How fast would instability have to spread first? How much of the ~10 sec fall time could be spared? Perimeter of building was 832 feet. If complete in 0.5 seconds, speed of “instability spread” would have been >1100 mph (Mach 1.5) “A steel structure, generally speaking, does not collapse suddenly when attacked by fire. There are unmistakable warning signs, namely, large deformations.” Hart, Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel, Halsted Press
NIST’s collapse initiation sequence:What would objective scientists have found?1. Relatively few columns were lost on impact2. Remaining columns had considerable extra capacity3. Fireproofing could not have been widely dislodged4. Steel could not have softened at the temps found5. Even at higher temps and longer periods tests showed minimal sagging of floors6. Forces were not produced to pull columns inward7. “Instability spread” would have taken much more time and would not result in uniform free-fall
NIST’s computer story is Bush Science The parameters NIST originally considered “realistic” were discarded because computer results “did not compare to observed events.” “More severe” parameters were substituted until animations gave the desired result NIST will not release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of real video footage
“Global collapse ensued?” What about resistance of floors below? If these floors each caused hesitation of only half a second, an extra 40 seconds would be needed. What about the observed squibs? (Pile-driving is not Pancaking) What about the large pools of molten metal observed in the basement areas of both Towers and WTC 7? What about the sulfur residue found on the steel?
The NIST WTC report is false because… They did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed, and their investigation was deceptive and unscientific at every step They reported findings that were in direct contradiction to their physical testing They omitted or distorted many important facts • Original design claims and John Skilling’s analysis • Resistance from building structure below • WTC 1 antenna moving first • Pools of molten metal lingering for weeks • Numerous eyewitness testimonies about explosions • Sulfur residue on steel
Researchers call for examination of the demolition hypothesis Demolition squibs seen ejected from floors far from impact zone Everything pulverized Molten metal found under rubble piles of all three buildings for weeks Site cleaned up by “Controlled Demolition, Inc.” Many reports of explosions and flashes of light
WTC 7 Would have been tallest building in 33 states Collapsed in 6.6 seconds Larry Silverstein, leaseholder for all three buildings -- “I said…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And [the fire department commander and I] made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” PBS, 2002 FEMA -- “the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers”
It takes weeks to plan and implement a controlled demolition
Thank you for listeningand watch out for more rats and elephants Demo TNRAT