NIST Waits 3 Months to Decline to Fix Flawed WTC7 Report Despite Admitted Omissions, Risks Lawsuit
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has declined a request to open an investigation into correcting errors in its report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 during the September 11th attacks. The decision is in response to a complaint filed with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) by attorney Dr. William Pepper on behalf of contributing members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who discovered the admitted errors.
The complaint describes “potential negligence and/or misconduct” in relation to the omission of critical structural components from computer simulations of WTC7’s collapse. NIST has indicated that, in their judgment, the claims in Dr. Pepper’s letter do not merit significant changes to the report. The April 14th response comes three months after a NIST spokesperson confirmed receiving notice on January 15, 2014. The original letter sent on December 13, 2013 indicated the group’s intentions to pursue legal action if the allegations were denied or ignored.
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.