July 2014 NIST response to Sen. Boxer

NIST has given a more detailed, but still no more truthful, defense then before of its omissions of the lateral support beams and plate stiffeners from its Building 7 investigation.  NIST admitted for the first time, albeit indirectly, that they omitted the lateral support beams from their investigation and report.

You can download the NIST Jim Schufrieder letter here:

NIST Jim Schufrieder in July 11 2014

Political Scientist and 9/11 Truth researcher and activist Mark Graham (owner of www.Davis911Truth.org) corresponded with Senator Barbara Boxer recently at the omission of 2 key structural features from the NIST investigation and report on Building 7.

The response from Jim Schufrieder, Director, Congressional and Legislative Affairs Office and dated July 11, 2014, is inadequate and in some places false. Schufrieder gave a 2 sentence response to on the web stiffeners or plate stiffeners and a 1 sentence response on the lateral support beams.  His response conspicuously omitted what NIST actually claimed happened in WTC 7 except in the most general terms (page 2).

The author’s inquiry, a “request for assistance with a federal agency” to Boxer, included a cover letter and the 11 page Technical discussion assembled and sent to the Department of Commerce OIG by Dr. William Pepper on December 12, 2013.


As you will see on page 1 of Schufrieder’s letter, he wrote,

“NIST (sic) detailed structural analysis of the girder in question indicated that web buckling did not occur under the combined effects of gravity loads and fire. Because there was no web buckling of Girder A2001, NIST did not consider the web stiffeners as a factor in the final NIST analyses.”

Speaking of the lateral support beams, on page 1 of his letter Schufrieder wrote,

“The NIST computer analyses of the WTC 7 collapse showed that G3005 did not fail laterally and therefore, the secondary beams S3007, G3007 and K3007–like the web stiffeners–had no bearing on the final NIST analyses nor on the conclusions drawn from them as to the most probable cause for the WTC 7 collapse.”

Schufrieder is lying on both subjects. This is what the author fully expected. But at least he served up an explanation of sorts, much more than the April 14 letter from Michael Newman, NIST Public Affairs, to Dr. Pepper. That letter was simply a denial, not even a defense.

The author is preparing a follow up response. The key will be a recommendation that Senator Boxer consult with or hire, short term and for the purpose of this inquiry, an independent professional engineer in the NIST Engineering Lab who is familiar with the assumptions and analysis of the building, and to obtain a technical response, stamped and signed, from that engineer.

The Senator has made zero attempt to assess the merit of the author’s argument (in the cover letter) or the Technical discussion or the reply by Jim Schufrieder and NIST. She has only played messenger. The author was surprised to find out this afternoon that Senator Boxer considers this matter closed because she has forwarded NIST’s response to the author. Senator Boxer requires the author to submit a new Privacy Act release form along with follow up comments, questions, and recommendations. That will be done.