William Pepper's Letter to DoC re: NIST on WTC7

[egalicontrarian]

Here is the letter:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

Here are two posts about it:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Em...tack_Engineer_Misconduct_WTC7-140117-254.html

http://911blogger.com/news/2014-01-...ning-nist-wtc-7-report-structural-feature-omi

Has this development been directly discussed here? And, if not, what do you all think about it?* It presents a focused (but, in Truthers' view, quite important) objection to NIST's study, i.e. that specific, purportedly relevant structural features of WTC7 are left out of NIST's analysis of the collapse. The technical details are explained in Pepper's letter (in a way that he says should be accessible to a layperson).

[Note: I am not a truther, and endorse something roughly like the progressive-left story about 9/11 and terrorism (e.g. as discussed by people like Noam Chomsky or Glenn Greenwald).]

*By "it" I mean the specific claims and arguments in Pepper's letter. I don't mean, for example, Pepper's psychological state, or the psychological states of Truthers in general, or the generally poor reliability of the two other links I posted, etc. We can grant for the sake of argument whatever you'd like about these other matters.

 

[ozeco41]

AFAIK hasn't been discussed here. I have discussed it in a truther dominated corner of The911Forum.

 

[egalicontrarian]

AFAIK hasn't been discussed here. I have discussed it in a truther dominated corner of The911Forum.

I see - could you provide a link?

 

[ozeco41]

I see - could you provide a link?

No problem. I was set up to edit the link into my first post but I got caught posting on three forums at once - one on a complicated issue. Plus got some pleasant but surprising family news.

This is the link.

Remember the audience I was posting for - the OP a rabid truther and me being both polite and indirect - responding to another member.

My "theme" is a political reality and pragmatics overview rather than any comment on the technical stuff.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Most of the Technical Discussion is pure B.S., typical Truther doublespeak. Written by people who don't understand structural engineering....in my very humble opinion.

 

[ozeco41]

Most of the Technical Discussion is pure B.S., typical Truther doublespeak. Written by people who don't understand structural engineering....in my very humble opinion.

Yes - in the hope that the politicians will not get technically savvy advice.

Forlorn hope IMO.

Even if the technical advice is 2nd rate it will suffice - there is nothing in the claims.

 

[egalicontrarian]

This is the link.

Thanks. (I had actually found that thread, but just lazily searched for "Pepper" and "commerce"!)

 

[ozeco41]

Thanks. (I had actually found that thread, but just lazily searched for "Pepper" and "commerce"!)

 

[egalicontrarian]

Most of the Technical Discussion is pure B.S., typical Truther doublespeak. Written by people who don't understand structural engineering....in my very humble opinion.

I assumed that many participants here would have this view. What I was hoping for was an explanation.

 

[ozeco41]

I assumed that many participants here would have this view. What I was hoping for was an explanation.

Of the technical stuff?? Let me look at it - give me an hour or so.

I'm back - it wasn't so hard - here are my preliminary comments. It is a *.pdf file - so the references are to the paragraphs numbered sequentially. BTW There is only one technical claim.

1, 2, 3, 4 Introductory scene setting
5 "It has never happened before' fallacy - not taken further
6 padding
7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Makes a claim about omitted details. The details are technically of little if any consequence. The issue has been extensively discussed here on JREF BUT with truther side using false context assumptions and most debunkers ignoring context and arguing details. Me and a couple of others calling "foul".

12 The claim that they have engineers to say that may be true - probably is - but the assertion is false.
13 Hyperbole for effect.
14 Politico legal threat - any engineers doing a professional review IMO would find little fault. Refer back to my two options in the post on 911. Reality is that the whole issue is blown out of perspective and framed in a strawman setting. Girder walk-off is one detail - one contributory factor - to failure of Col79. it is unlikely that actually proving an error by NIST in that detail would negate NIST's overall findings. I have only seen the T Sz analysis - if that is the best that AE911 have they will get laughed at. Their fall back tactic is obvious - once they get shown the door they will claim cover-up.

15 Unwarranted hyperbole.
-
16, 17, 18, 19, 20 offers to collaborate in a review.

So that is all the technical content - one single claim. That claim is about a minor detail and so far they haven't demonstrated that it has any significant effect.

Let me find the thread. Done.

Try this one WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79"

IIRC that was a follow on to an earlier thread but it will get you started.

Post #916 will show you where I was coming from.

 

[Redwood]

Ha, ha! Am I completely nuts, but in the real world, won't any sane court dismiss, out-of-hand, legal objections to an engineering report? Won't they tell the plaintiffs to take their objections elsewhere? Won't they tell plaintiffs that they're perfectly welcome to take their "objections" to their "European compatriots", but please leave us alone in the meantime? Paging "LashL"!

 

[Muc]

The clumsy threats are just precious.

Mr. Zinser, quite frankly, the credibility of NIST, and the Department of Commerce requires that you open an investigation into the potential negligence and/or misconduct by the lead investigators of NIST’s Building 7 investigation and that NIST be directed to produce a corrected an alysis and report on the collapse of Building 7, but, this time, by fully ta king into account the presence of the stiffeners and the lateral support beams.

Silence from your office or a rejection of this reasonable request may prompt my clients to seek legal recourse and to raise this issue with their colleagues in Europe where a number of government officials and professionals have long been critical of the official U.S. Government’s position and explanation of the destruction of the WTC on 9/11. The detailed information and evidence possessed by my clients (I enclose herewith a detailed, technical narrative, graphics, and a DVD prepared for your further review) would be examined closely by their European structural engineering colleagues at Cambridge University and elsewhere.

I suggest that the resulting reports would devastate the current NIST conclusions, but that is not our intention. We wish to handle this issue, here, where it primarily belongs, but the ball is now in your court.

Mr. Pepper, quite frankly, if all your clients had to do was to go to Europe (which appears to be a wonderland of Truth according to American conspiracist legend*) and someone there would do something which would "devastate the current NIST conclusions", they would have done it long ago, and everybody knows that.

* It isn't

 

[Orphia Nay]

While this letter is barely worth acknowledging, other than the amusement it offers, I have to ask, why is he writing to the Department of Commerce, of all places?

What puts this issue in their jurisdiction?

 

[ozeco41]

While this letter is barely worth acknowledging, other than the amusement it offers, I have to ask, why is he writing to the Department of Commerce, of all places?

What puts this issue in their jurisdiction?

IIRC Dept of Commerce "owns" NIST

 

[ozeco41]

Ha, ha! Am I completely nuts, but in the real world, won't any sane court dismiss, out-of-hand, legal objections to an engineering report? Won't they tell the plaintiffs to take their objections elsewhere? Won't they tell plaintiffs that they're perfectly welcome to take their "objections" to their "European compatriots", but please leave us alone in the meantime? Paging "LashL"!

Won't go to court - the opening move is a bid for "collaboration" - so it is "conciliation based" - to get to court on first move it would need to be conflict based at which stage a whole lot of preliminary issues come into play - having a basis for action and "standing" probably the two big ones. I'm not familiar with US legal procedures at that level.

 

[Animal]

While this letter is barely worth acknowledging, other than the amusement it offers, I have to ask, why is he writing to the Department of Commerce, of all places?

What puts this issue in their jurisdiction?

Agreed.....he could not get past his first sentence without a lie.

 

[jaydeehess]

The inclusion of an offer to collaborate with a renewed investigation on the failure mode of the girder is nothing more than an attempt at garnering legitimacy for ae911t .. However, that being followed by a threat of a concerted media attack destroys, IMHO, any chance that the offer would be accepted.

AE911T likely feels this letter offers a win for them any way it goes. If they are allowed to participate in a new analysis they get legitimacy in two ways, first in garnering a new analysis, and also by being recognized as having expertise enough to partner with DoC.

If they get no action on this they can claim the cover up continues.

But, of course this is merely the same old, same old, prove-NIST-wrong tactic that ae911t has pursued since its inception. It does not offer anything towards an better explanation if collapse than fire induced failure.

 

[DGM]

This won't get past the first line of letter openers.

They'll wonder who this is, Google the name(s) and spend the rest of the day laughing.

 

[Animal]

The inclusion of an offer to collaborate with a renewed investigation on the failure mode of the girder is nothing more than an attempt at garnering legitimacy for ae911t .. However, that being followed by a threat of a concerted media attack destroys, IMHO, any chance that the offer would be accepted.

AE911T likely feels this letter offers a win for them any way it goes. If they are allowed to participate in a new analysis they get legitimacy in two ways, first in garnering a new analysis, and also by being recognized as having expertise enough to partner with DoC.

If they get no action on this they can claim the cover up continues.

But, of course this is merely the same old, same old, prove-NIST-wrong tactic that ae911t has pursued since its inception. It does not offer anything towards an better explanation if collapse than fire induced failure.

No doubt they are all slapping themselves on the back over this letter. And no doubt dicky gage will be gearing up for another round of fund raising vacation planning

 

[gerrycan]

7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Makes a claim about omitted details. The details are technically of little if any consequence.

So you don't think that the stiffener plates would extend the required walk off distance for the girder to fail for example?

Girder walk-off is one detail - one contributory factor - to failure of Col79. it is unlikely that actually proving an error by NIST in that detail would negate NIST's overall findings.

I disagree. The failure of the girder was quoted by NIST as being the initiating event of failure. The erratum that they released changing the distance required from 5.5" to 6.25" never gave an explanation of where they got the extra 3/4" from. The maximum is 5.5", perhaps that's why.

So that is all the technical content - one single claim. That claim is about a minor detail and so far they haven't demonstrated that it has any significant effect.

So you do not think that the inclusion of the stiffener plates would extend the ability of the girder to be pushed to the west without failing? Please explain that.