Members of Scientists for 9/11 Truth recently contacted engineers who were involved, at least tangentially, in the official investigation of 9/11. Those approached included

On July 5, 2012 Willers emailed NCSEA asking for the prevailing opinion within the community of structural engineers about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7). The email exchange was facilitated by Jeanne Vogelzang, Executive Director of NCSEA. Willers email reached the three associations, NCSEA, CASE, and SEI that represent most of the structural engineers in the United States. In his initial email, Willers pointed to a 9/11 truth “debunking” site whose authors appear to be anonymous. This site quotes an article from Structure Magazine that seeks to explain the cause of the WTC 7 collapse as “Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7.”

then President of the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA); Dr. Gene Corley, a structural engineer who served as the lead investigator on the FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study following the September 11, 2001 attacks; and James G. Quintiere, Fire Protection Engineering Department University of Maryland. Dr. Quintiere was one of the few individuals within the “official” circle of those concerned with the investigation to question the results of the National Institute of Standards and Technoogy (NIST). The initial contacts were made by Bill Willers, a Scientists’ member and Professor Emeritus of Biology, University of Wisconsin, and were supported by Dwain Deets, also a Scientists’ member and Former Director for Research Engineering, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Willers email correspondence can be viewed here.

William B. Willers
Professor Emeritus of Biology
Scientists’ Member

Members of Scientists for 9/11 Truth recently contacted engineers who were involved, at least tangentially, in the official investigation of 9/11. Those approached included Thomas DiBlasi, then President of the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA); Dr. Gene Corley, a structural engineer who served as the lead investigator on the FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study following the September 11, 2001 attacks; and James G. Quintiere, Fire Protection Engineering Department University of Maryland. Dr. Quintiere was one of the few individuals within the “official” circle of those concerned with the investigation to question the results of the National Institute of Standards and Technoogy (NIST). The initial contacts were made by Bill Willers, a Scientists’ member and Professor Emeritus of Biology, University of Wisconsin, and were supported by Dwain Deets, also a Scientists’ member and Former Director for Research Engineering, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Willers email correspondence can be viewed here.

Thomas DiBlasi
Former President
of NCSEA

On July 5, 2012 Willers emailed NCSEA asking for the prevailing opinion within the community of structural engineers about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7). The email exchange was facilitated by Jeanne Vogelzang, Executive Director of NCSEA. Willers email reached the three associations, NCSEA, CASE, and SEI that represent most of the structural engineers in the United States. In his initial email, Willers pointed to a 9/11 truth “debunking” site whose authors appear to be anonymous. This site quotes an article from Structure Magazine that seeks to explain the cause of the WTC 7 collapse as “Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7.”

On July 10, Tom DiBlasi, then President of NCSEA, responded with an emailed suggestion that Willers read the “peer reviewed reports” by NIST. However, as noted by Dwain Deets in a letter (see below),
DiBlasi indicates, by his mention of 767’s crashing into the buildings, that he is speaking of the NIST reports for the Twin Towers. He makes no mention of WTC7.

Dwain Deets, Former NASA Director
Scientists’ Member

Following an email from Willers on July 12 to DiBlasi asking for information on the peer reviews, DiBlasi responded on July 13 that he meant for Willers to read the reports, not the peer reviews, and that he never had a list of the reviewers, but that the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) or the New York Times might know the reviewers. DiBlasi stated that Dr. Gene Corley would be willing to correspond with Willers after he read the reports. To this email, Corley also responded with “Good response.” Apparently Corley was being blind-copied by DiBlasi!

On July 16 Dwain Deets emailed DiBlasi a letter and alerted him to the Consensus 9/11 Panel. Deets reminded DiBlasi that the NIST final report was the sole support for the official account of 9/11. Deets offered a list of engineering leaders who question the official account, and ending with the opinion that NCSEA should facilitate discussion about the issue.

W. Gene Corley, Lead investigator
FEMA WTC Building Study

On July 27 Willers emailed Gene Corley explaining the history of correspondence to that point. Corley’s July 27 response was to express hope that engineers involved in the truth movement read this and his mention of the “Code of Ethics” and his reliance on “scientific evidence”. Willers, still assuming that the peer reviews
existed, emailed Colrey on August 1 requesting help in seeing these reviews. On August 2, Corley responded with a renewed invitation to answer Willers’ questions regarding “technical issues”. As leader of the Building Performance Study (BPS) team leader for the World Trade Center Study, Corley also facilitated cooperation between this team and the Pentagon BPS team. Corley also led the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), which conducted a structural performance investigation of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, after the bombing there in 1995.

For two months thereafter Willers sought via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get access to the peer reviews. Meanwhile he found reference to James Quintiere of the University of Maryland who openly questioned NIST’s explanation. On October 16 Willers emailed him, explaining that he had not been able to access his paper.

James Quintiere
Fire Protection
Engineer
U. of Maryland

Quintiere’s answer the next day, October 17, included his paper along with his comment that rather than peer reviews there was an “Advisory Committee,” many members of which were not in agreement with NIST’s conclusions. At this point, Willers terminated the FOIA request. Quintiere’s short paper on the WTC investigation ends with this statement: “I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.” Despite Quintiere’s recommendation and on-the-surface openness to proper investigation (in November 2001 he publicly protested the sale of the WTC steel), Quintiere, in the case of the WTC building destructions as in the WACO hearings in which he participated, does not step outside the parameters adopted by the official investigation. Quintiere offers alternatives to NIST’s theory while staying firmly within the official story.

On October 17, Willers emailed Quintiere asking for help in seeing the report of the Advisory Committee. On October 18 Quintiere replied that he did not have it. On November 5, Willers emailed Dr. Gene Corley. Referencing Corley’s earlier comment regarding his Code of Ethics, Willers cited Dwain Deets’ email to him, in which Deets listed many engineers questioning NIST. Willers asked Corley’s opinion of the most ethical path forward, a question that Corley has yet to answer.

Willers cut short the FOIA request for “peer reviews” when advised there were none, and states he is disinclined to start a FOIA request all over again for an “Advisory Committee Report” from NIST, particularly as he is a zoologist and would not know how properly to interpret an answer that certainly would be in engineering language.

The Case for Controlled Demolition:

The case for the destruction of the New York Towers and Building 7 by some form of controlled demolition is briefly laid out in our Introduction. Those adhering to the false, official story of why these buildings “collapsed” are careful to stay within the confines laid out by the NIST reports. For example, the NIST study of the Towers, WTC1 and WTC2, ended before the actual “collapses” began. Thus, all evidence items for controlled demolition, appearing as the destructions commenced and progressed, were ignored, as were the eyewitness testimonies to pre-demolition blasts. While Corley and Quintiere claim to have adhered to scientific principles in their analyses, their claim is patently false in light of their failure to consider all the evidence. If a building is about to fall down, the cause (for example, from ground subsidence, earthquake, controlled demolition) is revealed most compellingly in the way it falls and in a forensic examination of the rubble. Quintiere’s failure to invoke National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) standard 921 that requires examination for explosives in case of high order damage is particularly egregious for someone who purports to be a fire science expert.

Action Item:

DiBlasi, Corley, and Quintiere are all supporters of the official story of 9/11. Although it seems highly unlikely that they would step outside this story,
they appear willing to discuss technical issues within the official story. This appears to present an opportunity for scientists and engineers to pick up this dialog should they feel it is worthwhile to do so.

The above-mentioned individuals can be reached at:

• Thomas DiBlasi, Email: tomd@diblasi-engrs.com, Cell: (203) 988-2523
• Gene Corley, Email: GCorley@ctlgroup.com
• James Quintiere, Email: jimq@umd.edu