| WTF News |

Baran Hines
The 9/11 Truth movement has been pushed back into national media conversation after a fan took an opportunity to grab a live microphone at the Superbowl XLVIII post-game press conference to say “Investigate 9/11” to the international broadcast audience.
Many media outlets have taken the opportunity to condemn the act as someone crazy just reminding people of a crazy alternative theory of America’s most traumatic moments in recent history as if there is no new or generally credible information worth considering. Most of the same media outlets also ignored the December 2013 bill to declassify information in the official 9/11 Commission report, which implicate representatives of multiple foreign governments and powerful private citizens in those countries, specifically Saudi Arabia.
Similarly, American media has chosen to ignore a significant pending complaint lodged with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) in reference to possible fraud uncovered in the final report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the collapse of World Trade Center 7.
Nov. 2013: Did NIST Fraudulently Omit A Key Component Related to Collapse Theory From WTC Building 7 Report?
In a letter (HTML | PDF) dated December 12, 2013 to the Office of the Inspector General, Attorney Dr. William Pepper summarized the nature of the “potential negligence and/or misconduct” in relation to the omission of critical structural components from the computer simulations analyzing hypothesized scenarios NIST generated to explain the collapse of WTC 7, which was not hit by an airplane. The letter calls for either NIST or the OIG to open an investigation into correcting the errors and analyzing how the simulations of structural failure would have been affected by the inclusion of the previously omitted steel components.

It was only some years after the issuance of the NIST Report that drawings were released, in response to a FOIA request, revealing that critical structural features in Building 7 were inexplicably missing from consideration in the Report.

These critical features included stiffeners, that provided critical girder support, as well as lateral support beams which supported a beam which allegedly buckled. Only through the omission of any discussion about the stiffeners and the lateral support beams is NIST’s probable collapse sequence possible. With the inclusion of these critical features, NIST’s probable collapse sequence must be ruled out unambiguously. It is the unanimous opinion of the structural engineers who have carefully studied this matter that an independent engineering enquiry would swiftly reach the same conclusion.

On January 14, the Inspector General sent a letter confirming that the matter had been assigned complaint number 14-0192 and referred to NIST for a specific response.

AE911Truth Discovers a Smoking Gun

The omitted components were uncovered by a team of researchers, working together unofficially through AE911Truth.org, the activist group of architects and engineers that donate their time to analyzing the scientific discrepancies between the evidence and final government reports of the 9/11 attacks. The loose collective of researchers, whom Pepper refers to as “clients”, discovered the final NIST report was based on computer simulations constructed from inaccurate representations of the original WTC construction drawings, which were obtained after a January 2012 Freedom of Information request.
During the following year, the team of researchers combined each others’ work to provide a linear body of evidence proving that the reference materials used in the final report were distorted at some point during the process and thus, failed to construct proper simulations of WTC7’s collapse.

After the discovery of these omissions, the group of engineers who discovered them pressed for nearly two years to get an answer to the question as to why these critical features were omitted from the Report’s discussion and analysis. They were greeted with silence until October 25, 2013 when a NIST public relations official (not a professional engineer) finally acknowledged that the stiffeners had been omitted, but incredibly (from an engineering standpoint) said they were not necessary to consider.

One of the researchers, David Cole, had been pursuing answers (with no progress) from NIST beginning in March 2012, including follow up emails in July, September and October of 2013. It wasn’t until October 25th that Cole received the substantive response from Michael Newman of the NIST Public Affairs Office. The reply to Cole’s second question even goes as far as to conceal the omissions, as Dr. Pepper’s letter described.

B) Given that Frankel drawing #9114 shows 3/4″ web/flange stiffeners installed on the girder at the 13th floor column 79 connection, why weren’t the stiffeners reported in NCSTAR 1-9 and shown in the figures listed above? Was Frankel Drawing #9114 used? If not, why not?

The web stiffeners shown at the end of the girder in Frankel drawing #9114 prevent web crippling. The structural analyses of WTC 7 did not show any web crippling failures. Therefore, the web crippling plates did not need to be included in the models/analyses.

After receiving this response, it became clear to the researchers that NIST was probably not going to be helpful in correcting the errors in the report and were possibly attempting to conceal the origins of the discrepancies. Within the next 45 days, Dr. Pepper drafted his Dec. 12 letter relaying the body of evidence to the Inspector General for consideration.
During the same period, David Cole and Dr. Pepper both discussed the ongoing issue with WTF News after the November 11 article while awaiting a response from the OIG and NIST.
After the OIG confirmed it referred the complaint to NIST on January 14, WTF News attempted to confirm who NIST assigned to investigate the allegations in the complaint. No NIST employees could confirm anything about the request, not even whether it had been officially received from the Inspector General. However, one employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity did confirm that numerous other employees were aware that the Inspector General’s response letter had been posted to the internet by Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Page: | 1: Main Article |
| 2: Email Correspondence From David Cole to NIST |
| 3: Dec. 12 2013 letter to Inspector General |
| 4: Jan. 14. 2014 response from Inspector General |

1N3JXjHFtZgJ3Z31tf9Y5euu8jDq8LP8hi

If you enjoy reading the information we bring you, please consider donating to WTF News via Bitcoin. Any donations are appreciated and go directly to expanding our capabilities.