Dr Greening to NIST

 

I believe there are many problems with the material presented in NIST’s Draft
Report on the collapse of WTC 7; most of these problems stem from the assumed
fuel loading on the fire-affected floors but I would add that NIST’s collapse
hypothesis is not physically achievable and not supported by observations of the
behavior of Building 7 during its collapse. In addition, NIST’s global collapse
time estimates appear to be in error by about 0.75 seconds which leads to a
substantial under-estimation of the acceleration of the collapsing building.

I therefore believe that the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
through its Draft Report, has fallen well short of substantiating its own collapse
initiation hypothesis but could, on the contrary, be said to have provided evidence
that a single column failure, brought on by thermal expansion of floor framing
beams and girders, did not precipitate a global collapse of WTC 7 - the reason
being that the NIST simulation predicts a slow collapse initiation which was not
observed. Therefore I believe that an alternative collapse initiation and
propagation hypothesis is called for - one that more accurately reflects the reality
of what happened to WTC 7 on September 11th 2001.

Dr. F. R. Greening
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
September 11th, 2008

Miragememories

Sep 12 2008, 07:54 AM

I don't agree with the man on many things, but unlike most
of the J**F one-think club, Frank Greening does display some integrity,
and is brave enough to argue what he believes, even when he knows it
will upset his fan club.

MM