Share:

Thomas A DiBlasi, PE, SECB, NCSEA PresidentDiBlasi Associates, PC500 Purdy Hill Road

Dear Mr DiBlasi,I have read your response to Prof Willers, as well as his letter to you. His letter pertained exclusively to WTC Building 7. Your summary statement, “We are confident in the FEMA/ASCE and NIST studies, and the total lack of evidence of any demolition of the buildings, other than by crashing 767s into them,” obviously doesn’t apply to Building 7. However, that error can be excused as it was most likely an inadvertent oversight.I do note the article Single Point of Failure in Structure Magazine was published in November 2007. NIST issued a Draft for Public Review nearly a year later, in August 2008. The Final Report was published in November 2008. At least one significant change was made between the Draft and the Final Report, as will be explained.Subsequently, a 9/11 Consensus Panel has been established with the purpose of providing the world with a clear statement, based on expert independent opinion, of some of the best evidence opposing the official narrative about 9/11. As I am a panel member, I find it easiest to explain the significant change by referencing the best-evidence points pertaining to this matter.1. “The Claim in NIST’s Draft Report that WTC 7 Did Not Come Down at Free Fall Acceleration.” This Draft Report of August 2008, and comments by the NIST project manager in conjunction with its release, Dr Shyam Sunder denies the possibility the building came down at free fall.2. “The Claim in NIST’s Final Report that WTC 7 Came Down in Free Fall Without Explosives.” Dr Sunder had explained in August 2008 it was impossible to come down at free fall do to fire alone, that is, without use of explosives.One additional best-evidence point is pertinent as well, “The Claim that WTC 7 Collapsed from Fire Alone.” The best evidence shows no steel-frame high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire. Furthermore, the collapse of WTC 7 was sudden, straight down, and symmetrical. No legitimate peer review should have allowed such departure from empirical evidence to stand without extremely compelling counter evidence. The peer review apparently did not function properly. The reasons for this deficiency are obvious when one realizes there was no peer review. David Ray Griffin, in his book The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (2010), tells of Dr. James Quintiere, a member of the advisory committee for NIST’s WTC project, saying in a lecture on the WTC investigations at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference, “I wish that there would be a peer review of this….” But, NIST did not take his advice. To summarize the situation as the 11th anniversary draws near, the NIST Final Report of November 2008 stands alone on the side of the official explanation. A Google search reveals only one technical authority has spoken publicly on its behalf, and only once. Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, the NIST project manager, was the featured speaker at the Structures Conference of ’09, although the contents of his talk are not posted online. Dr. Gene Corley might be considered such an authority, but his recent commentaries have not delved into WTC 7. On the side of those questioning the official explanation are a number of highly qualified engineers. Some of the more prominent are:* Dr. John Edward Anderson, Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Minnesota, and former Professor of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering at Boston University.* Dr. Robert Bowman, former head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering at the US Air Force Institute of Technology, and the Director of Advanced Space Programmes Development (“Star Wars”) under Presidents Ford and Carter.* Dr. Joel Hirschhorn, former Professor of Metallurgical Engineering at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and a former member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment’s staff.* Dr. Jack Keller, Professor Emeritus of Engineering at Utah State University, who was named by Scientific American in 2004 as one the world’s 50 leading contributors to science and technology benefiting society.* Dr. Heikki Kurttila, Safety Engineer and Accident Analyst for Finland’s National Safety Technology Authority.* Edward Munyak, a Mechanical and Fire Protection Engineer, who has served as Fire Protection Engineer for the State of California and the US Departments of Energy and Defense.If you wish to only consider structural engineers, an article quoting 29 structural/civil engineers is published on the AE911Truth.org website.Architects, likewise, have questioned the official explanation. Some of the more prominent are:* Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects, who formed Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in 2006 – which by May 2010 had obtained the signatures of over 1,200 licensed and/or degreed architects and engineers on its petition, which says that a new investigation is needed.* Daniel B. Barnum, an award-winning Fellow of the American Institute of Architects; founder of the Houston AIA Residential Architecture Committee.* David Paul Helpern, a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects and the founder of Helpern Architects.* David A. Johnson, an internationally known architect and city planner, who has chaired the planning departments at Syracuse and Ball State universities and also served as president of the Fulbright Association of the United States.* Kevin A. Kelly, a fellow of the American Institute of Architects, who wrote Problem Seeking: An Architectural Programmeming Primer, which has become a standard textbook.* Dr. David Leifer, Coordinator of the Graduate Programme in Facilities Management at the University of Sydney, and former professor at Mackintosh School of Architecture.* Paul Stevenson Oles, a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects, which in 1989 called him “the dean of architectural illustrators in American”; co-founder of the American Society of Architectural Perspectivists.With such an array of technical experts questioning the official explanation, it is well past time when professional organisations, such as the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, should begin facilitating an open discussion on the issues dividing the two sides on this matter.Sincerely,Dwain Deets,Former Director for Research Engineering and Aerospace Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Centercc: Prof. Emeritus Willers –Veterans Today