The FEMA/ Kean
Commission Report was a flawed investigation: Comments
on Some of NIST's FAQs
Charles Pegelow
Charles
Pegelow, a civil engineer with more than 25 years
experience in structural design questions the official
account of the events of 9/11.
As an introduction: The FEMA/ Kean
Commission Report was a flawed investigation. The most
important tool of any criminal investigators is the
eyewitness and first responder accounts; if for no other
reason, they were there at the scene. For example, the
first thing the police do at an accident scene is to
gather all witness accounts and within a week the
insurance companies are also telephoning the witnesses
to take their testimony. In addition to the NYFD, the
NYPD also had reported finding a suspicious device and
another report stated that they thought a van in the
basement of WTC1 had exploded with a bomb.
In addition to the firemen calling the Commission a
cover up, there are the victim's family organizations
that are saying the same thing. To give you some
perspective on what a comprehensive, thorough,
scientific investigation looks like, please recall the
Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Although there may
remain minor questions concerning some of the periphery
conclusions, the report, on the whole, stands without
major dispute within the scientific community. Contrast
this with the FEMA 9/11 report and its major
inconsistencies. The commission did gather many experts
but did not provide them with the full information they
needed. FEMA hampered and distorted the investigation of
the professionals they hired. For example, Mr.
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl stated before the Committee on
Science of the U.S. House of Representatives 6 March
2002 Hearing: FEMA did not provide "videotapes and
photographs taken on 9/11 and the following days and
copies of the engineering drawings. At this time, having
the videotapes, photographs and copies of the drawings
not only is useful, but also is essential in enabling us
to conduct any analysis of the collapse and to formulate
conclusions from our effort."
The same story of hampering investigations comes from
other scientists and engineers, (see Learning from 9/11:
Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center.)
On 26 October 2004 an alliance of 100 prominent
Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11
was launched demanding deeper investigation into the
events of 9/11.
In conclusion, FEMA/ Kean Commission Report was a flawed
investigation and it needs to be reopened. An open,
public inquiry into the attacks - independent of the
Federal Government - should be set up under an
independent judicial body with power to subpoena
evidence.
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed
to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft,
why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much
damage? Here it is instructive to consider the concept
of global vs. local damage. From the standpoint of
global collapse, that is, evidence that overturns [the
official account] is easy to show because it revolves
about (a) resistance of the columns to overstressed
conditions and (b) the impact shear was less than the
designed wind condition. We also have the following
statements about the original design:
The Richard Roth Telegram: According to the calculations
of engineers, who worked on the Towers' design, all the
columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as
the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent
side, and the building would still be strong enough to
withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.
According to Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil
engineering professor and the World Trade Center's
construction manager: "meaning that more than
nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have
to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome
the support capacity of the remaining columns". See
Towers' Design Parameters.
According to Matthys Levy (chairman of Weidlinger Assoc)
who did independent computer structural analysis study
for Larry Silverman (and also had a set of the
drawings); states: (a) the failure of the trusses did
not cause the tower collapse, (b) the fires did not lead
to floor collapses, (c) fire temperatures were lower
than typical office fires, and (d) "to create the
vertical collapses that we saw in the Twin Towers all of
the 47 very large columns that comprised the core had to
fail at the same instant" What failed, when and how?.
At this point we are left with only one question: How
could "all 47 core columns fail at the same instance"?
Fires could not do that. This was not addressed in
FEMA's report.
From the standpoint of local design, we do not have any
verifiable information from the 1968 design. However, we
note that:
1. The airplanes initial impact did cause column damage
(FEMA WTC Building Performance Study Chapter 2).
Perimeter columns 31/36WTC1 & 27/32WTC2 perimeter
columns were destroyed, and WTC1 & WTC2 core columns
were destroyed).
We, off course could expect substantial local damage
under the circumstances, but FEMA is attempting to prove
the truss theory, the pancake collapse, the truss bolts
theory, and so on along with fires as a reasonable
collapse theory for the core columns. This is about as
reasonable if I told you that you could cut some
branches on a tree and the whole tree would fall down.
Sorry, the real world doesn't work that way.
2. Why did NIST not consider a "controlled demolition"
hypothesis with matching computer modeling and
explanation as it did for the "pancake theory"
hypothesis? A key critique of NIST's work lies in the
complete lack of analysis supporting a "progressive
collapse" after the point of collapse initiation and the
lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition
hypothesis.
3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a
controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise
buildings have ever before or since been brought down
due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot
enough for buildings to collapse.
4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the
collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of
controlled demolition explosions?
5. Why were two distinct spikes - one for each tower -
seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed?
Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each
tower?
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds
(WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)--speeds that approximate
that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum
(with no air resistance)?
7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the
WTC towers weren't hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700
degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires
does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in
the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six
hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to
bring down the WTC towers?
The February 13, 1975 WTC1 North Tower Fire. The 1975
fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident
from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side
windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from
these broken windows. This indicates a temperature
greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were
not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact)
indicating a temperature below 700°C. < http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
wtc_1975_fire.html> lists NY Times articles.
8. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated
because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If
the sprinklers were working, how could there be a
'raging inferno' in the WTC towers?
9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an
oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire,
why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when
the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?
Smoke impedes radiant heat flux to surrounding surfaces.
10. Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane
impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so
excessive?
Open flames produce direct, radiant, and infrared heat.
Both radiant and infrared heat are blocked by smoke and
solid objects. A reconstruction of the arrangement of
the room (on paper if not in actual fact) is critical to
this assessment. This may be done by witness statements,
physical remains, burn indicators, or pre-fire photos or
even videos. Stoll Curve - A plot of thermal energy and
time predicted to cause a pain sensation, or a second
degree burn, in human tissue. *As defined by the
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) in
Standard F1002
11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of
molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST
claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although
aluminum burns with a white glow?
12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the
WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition?
Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite
residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called
thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through
butter."
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports
of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC
7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept.
11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to
complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being
considered to explain the collapse?
Resume:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2257
(www.ae911truth.org/info/9)
top^
|
