Truthers Schooled By NIST

[911sausageman]

Love it!



[blueshadow1996]

You think gravity had something to do with the building falling,along with the fire?

[smitty121981]

you got the title wrong. NIST got schooled by ae911Truth and now have been forced to admit to the freefall descent of WTC7!!!

[JSSTyger]

Truther: If the bldg didn't come down by use of explosives...isn't it possible a smaller amount of explosives than what you estimated could have done the job?

Sunder: No. A building that can fall naturally like a controlled demolition will require 200 billion pounds of nuclear weaponry. Obviously nuclear weaponry was not used so we have to go back to our original hypothesis of thermal expansion.

[Hank333etc]

From this point forward... all that is needed to create a total collapse of a steel framed building is a large fire. Instead of spending months placing precisly positioned explosives, we can just put a few thousand gallons of gas in the building and set it on fire. It will collapse at near free fall speed. Thank you NIST!!!

[mcplanetearth]

I'm gonna start a company called "FIRE DEMOLITION" We demolish buildings for 1/8 the cost of controlled demolitions from conventional co$tly means... Call us now and you'll get a free consultation from one of our kerosene fire demolition experts.

[thebign2004]

Ok, without the gay commentary...

/watch?v=v90RioFSB4M

[akbar360]

WTC7 was not hit by a plane but it also collapsed. Buildings do not collapse because of fire. These buildings were made of steel and concrete, concrete does not burn and it takes 1,480 degrees (C) to melt steel. The hottest kerosene (jet fuel) can get is 820 degrees (C). Many people witnessed explosions in the buildings including workers, police officers, firefighters and reporters.

Go to Google and put in Improbable Collapse

[oxomaticman]

Who's contending the steel melted? Who's contending all the heat was generated by burning jet fuel? It's just like saying, "Well the heat from one match can't possibly kill anyone." while throwing it onto a pile of gasoline soaked rags in someone's basement. Good luck using THAT in court.

[strapt313]

google search images from ground zero. in them you can count seven buildings that are almost completely destroyed by debris. much, much more damaged than WTC7 and yet......they are all standing. amazing isn't it? i guess the nists' laws of physics don't apply there.

[moderatesunited]

Wow still photographs vs actually physics tests. I'm sure photos are enough to ridicule a report.....

[strapt313]

hahahahahahah!!!!!! wow!!!! how dumb do you gotta be? this is so funny. they actually told people, in public, that hydrocarbon fires collapsed a steel building. oh you poor dumb people who believe this. i wish i could be that naive once in a while. it would be nice to go on vacation from reality every so often. i cant stop laughing. i gotta show this video to other smart people i know. they'll get a real kick out of this. thank god for really dumb and gullible people. they make me laugh.

[TruthersRAlwaysWrong]

@strapt313

I'm laughing at you because you're not a firefighter. So what you say is utter bullshit.

[Roonoon2]

@strapt313 hay go to "debunking911mythsDOTcom" and "itwastypedDOTcom" and see their explanations for WTC7, go to all the sites trying to protect the official story of WTC7, you will have a good laugh :-)

[oxomaticman]

....blah, hit enter by mistake on the last comment. Anyway, you seem to be making a huge deal out of building 7 simply because it FELL, while you have all these other buildings that were eventually totally destroyed themselves. I don't get it. Two of the largest buildings in the US collapsing wasn't enough, so they needed to bring down a third one for extra measure?

[coilYTcoyle]

oxo,

The thing you need to "get" is that all three of them were controlled demolitions. WTC7 is just the most easily demonstrated.

For WTC1&2, we need around three thousand murder trials. By the end of them, we might have figured out something closer to the truth.

Best Regards,

Coil

[oxomaticman]

Read strapt313's comments about all the surrounding buildings that where severely damaged and get back to me on your "controlled" demolition theory.

[mikesglider]

This is so lame "IT" should be criminal as well!

[CACBCCCU]

This pseudo-scientific crapflood from NIST is about as "elegant" as a mob boss pinky ring.

[smitty121981]

This title should read "Sir Isaac Newton schooled by NIST" because apparently his basic laws of motion no longer apply to our physical reality!! Bunch of fucking liars!!

[WarCrime911]

Seriously, someone should make a video called "NIST debunks the Law of Conservation of Momentum"!

Their latest report contradicts the findings of their original report in terms of what is says about hydrocarbon fires causing the collapse of the 2 towers.

Also they said Thermite won't work because it can only cut lateral columns, yet their theory relies on the failure of lateral columns??? WTF is that shit?

Are people retarded? Have some common sense! WTC 7 was a controlled demolition!

[smitty121981]

you should search for this paper called "The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites" it's a great read and includes an interesting theory of how thermite could have been applied to all the vertical columns

[ThoughtCrime7]

What does N*I*S*T stand for?

Not Interested in Science or Technology

Neo-cons Scared of Truth

Never Indict the State for Treason

Nail Islam, Stage Terror

Nazi Institute of Scare Tactics

No Investigation Surrounding Thermite

Newton Irrelevant to Sunder's Thesis

[AtoK47]

fucking NIST. I like the Not Interested in Science or Technology.

[theropingeffect]

Awesome rebutal. Was this in the NIST report as well? Anybody who disagrees is obviously a douchebag.

[LazlosPlane]

Well, you watch South Park, so obviously your take on right and wrong are beyond question.

"I urge you to read 21,000 pages of twisted logic and when you understand it, then we can talk!"

Oh, and by the way, "buildings were not constructed to withstand airline impacts." --Dr. Sunders ACTUAL WORDS, moron.

[tachomartin]

The person taht posted this video is an example of how stupid some people can be. It is obvious that that they were trying shut this guy up. Now, ask yourelf....Why?

They can't answer real questions...You are an idiot!

[blingwave]

Do you really think that moron in the crowd can "read it, and understand it?"

[rudeboy2012]

Well, thanks for cutting his question out. I gues it doesn't matter, because it seems that the NIST guy was completely avoiding his question. Avoiding a question doesn't amount to "owning" anything.  Douchebag.

[izzysykopth]

Ill send you a vid where you can hear the ?

[felicity5150]

Anyone who buys this grotesque lie is utterly ignorant. Oh and tammer, don't waste your time on gaimingeagle. We need naive obedient slaves to do the dirty work. Let this schmuck piss his life away slaving for the man and then die early of cancer due to ingesting poison approved by the FDA. That's the American way!

[Eriksz]

New Phenomenon? LOL

Thermal Expansion? LOL

Give me a break, 100 years of fire safety research out the window.

I smell bullshit! The only schooling here will be when they all get sent to JAIL!

[gamingeagle19]

Again, childish and desperate. Is "shinola" even a word? Have any more insults you would like to throw at me? And I don't watch American Idol just so you know.

[TransUK69]

Having a bald specky ethnic front their 'symmetrical universal collapse from office contents fire' report...was this a tactic d'ya think? like the tories in the UK could never have started the phoney tony Iraq war only the labour(peoples)party could have pulled it off.

[gamingeagle19]

Very nice tammer, you have just confirmed how childish, stupid, and desperate truthers really are to try attack people that actually use facts and scientific evidence to debate while people like you will always be a slave to people like Alex Jones and Dylan Avery. You would believe them if they told you H.w. Bush and Hitler were related.

[MrHanke]

I'm sure you wasted more of your life making this video than i did watching it. It's ok, NIST found a new Phenomenon, lol. I still can't believe one support column brought that building down the way it came down.

[gamerofall]

omg lol they cut the lights instead of his mic @ 1:15 ... if you believe NIST.. (which the uploader does)seriously,no offense but do your homework... they will take money under the table and turn the other way, just like any other institution in this world, you know what im sayin!! "once you see the whole truth, your mind will not allow you to believe the lie any longer"(fact) i wish you all the best and help wake up your fellow man!

[SteveM818]

Sham Sunder says there were no explosions recorded from WTC-7. Well, that's a lie, because here's a video of WTC-7 where you can hear a loud explosion just seconds before the building falls:

27minutes, 45seconds in:

tinyurlDOTcom/5swnld

And there are witnesses who said they heard the explosions too, so...

Sham has some 'splainin' to do!

[smitty121981]

Steve, excellent point, and a great video with auditory evidence of a blast. I have submitted formally my comments on this lie, you should do the same!! The instructions are on the NIST website. But hurry, there is only a couple weeks for public comment on the report!

peace

[rathieal]

I get the impression as an outsider, that anyone who does pay out a truther is buying into Bush's bullshit that conspiracy theroies and questioning authority is unamerican. I'd rather spend my time paying out bush for not having built a sturcture in place of the towers by this time (defiantly in the face of terrorists) and overspending on war. Bush is a douche- not people seeking answers.

[buddhaglass]

pay out?

[rathieal]

to make fun of (phrase used in Australia).

[uyoudecide]

i havent read the nist report i listened to engineers question the nist report because all of it is based on assumption and a computer model...no evidence ,why if the thermal expansion took place they did not look at the steel and cannot prove it took place even

[guitarlover38]

buddhaglass, why weren't we allowed to hear the question from the Inofwars reporter? Any rational reason why you played that song while he was asking his question? I think you have a career at Faux News soon.

[buddhaglass]

It's a COMEDY video. That's why I put the song in. You can hear the info tard on other videos. He didn't even ASK a question. He made a speech.

[bronco2121]

the infowars guy is not a pro reporter. the new york times reporter IS a pro and he asked his very direct question 3 times, and three times it wasn't answered. what difference does it make if he DID get his question out? it still wouldn't have been answered. NIST couldn't even say that the building had any flaws, although it folded like a house of cards. a house of cards doesn't really have any flaws either if you think about it.

[guitarlover38]

I didn't think it was a funny video. There's nothing funny about the demolition of WTC 7. Silverstein inadvertently confessed to its demolition and skyscrapers simply don't fall straight down into their own footprint. You don't even have to be an engineer to know that. If that was the case, who the hell would step foot into ANY skyscraper?

[RadAntelope]

Silverstein did no such thing, you putz. The towers didn't "fall into their own footprint" wither. You're not an engineer, obviously, so what would you know about "what an engineer knows?" Google '9-11 Myths,' 'Debunking 9-11,' and 'WTC7 Lies' and they will fill you in on everything 9-11 Troofers like "guitarlover" don't want you to hear about. Namely, facts, evidence, refutations of their insanity, and skepticism of the 9-11 Troof cult.

PWNT

[guitarlover38]

He did no such thing? Why would Silverstein say "pull it" which is a COMMON term used in the demolitoin industry? If he was referring to fire fighters as he subsequently claimed, I would think a real estate tycoon would have a better education than to refer to fire fighters as "it" Not only that, but there were no firefighters to "pull" as they were already away from the scene at 11:30am. WTC 7 DID fall into its footprint, all you have to do is look at the birds-eye photo to know that.

[gamingeagle19]

watch?v=43F54hR0NW8

It will enlighten you. Besides, why on Earth would Larry admit to a huge insurance fraud on National tv!?

[guitarlover38]

Use your common sense. If pull means to literally pull a building over then it's still a demolition term! For a building, ANY building to fall straight down that fast, would mean that every single support would have to fail at exactly the same time. These are simple laws of gravity. If there's friction, e.g. the UNdamaged part of the building (most of the building was not damaged at all), then the building would NOT fall straight down, nor within 6-7 seconds that it did.

[gamingeagle19]

Pull is a demolition term for physically pulling down a building with cables. In the FDNY, the term pull means to withdraw the firefighters. Look it up. And not all of the supports have to fail. If one of the three main supports fails then there is too much weight on the other supports and they collapsed seconds later. You can see that in the videos. The penthouse which was on top of the support that failed collapsed first and the building followed.

[SteveM818]

Hi gamingeagle19. You're half right. "pull" CAN mean to actually pull a building down with cable, however, the use of the term "pull" or "pulling" is used in demolition to describe when explosives blow out columns to allow gravity to pull the structure down. Here are a few examples (continued in next post)

[SteveM818]

"Placed in over 400 locations, the shaped charges were sequentially initiated over a period of 5.4 seconds, working from southwest to northeast through the structure.... Following the seemingly endless 2.6 second natural pause in the non-electric initiation system, the structural charges detonated on cue, allowing the southwest wing of the structure to fail first, creating the desired lateral "pull" on the north and east curtain walls."

tinyurlDOTcom/6mcjup

[gamingeagle19]

Yeah, but he wasn't using a technical term, he was just describing the effect it would have.

[SteveM818]

"The term Building Implosion can be misleading... Implosion occurs when the difference between internal to external pressure is such that a structure collapses on itself. When external pressure on a structure is greater enough than its internal pressure, the structures implodes. The building implosion technique does not rely on the difference between internal and external pressure to pull the building down, but simply on the effect of gravitational pull."

tinyurlDOTcom/6axb2t

[SteveM818]

And here is an example where a demolition expert from Europe recognizes the word "pull" as a controlled demolition term using explosives after hearing Silverstein say the WTC-7 was "pulled":

"This is work of man. This is a hired job. (Silverstein) said it himself. You hear him saying "Pull it" down." -Danny Jowenko

tinyurlDOTcom/6o8qrb

[w0bbl3r]

but you said in one your earlier comments, i believe its a quote from a "reliable source" (cough, cough, BULLSHIT, cough)

"Placed in over 400 locations, the shaped charges were sequentially initiated over a period of 5.4 seconds, working from southwest to northeast through the structure...."

do you have any idea how loud that would be? and how many people would have seen these charges that morning? everyone in there that morning would have seen them, and the whole of new york would have heard it

[SteveM818]

w0bbl3r, are you claiming that Controlled Demolition, Inc. isn't a reliable source?

Re: The loudness factor, there's witnesses on record who heard loud explosions seconds before WTC-7 was demolished. There's also an audio recording of the blast.

And why do you think "everyone" there that morning would have seen the planted explosives? Persons having security access to the interior core of the building could have strategically placed explosives on columns without "everyone" seeing them.

[w0bbl3r]

no, it wouldnt have been possible to hide that amount of explosives. they wouldnt have been just in the middle of the building. the corners of the building were also support columns, and would have needed explosives. have a look around at other controlled drops, and you will see (and hear) the difference.

and saying that there were no FDNY in WTC7 would mean that they were in on it, and i dont think they would like you saying that, consiering the over 300 firefighters that died that day

[SteveM818]

"no, it wouldnt have been possible to hide that amount of explosives. they wouldnt have been just in the middle of the building. the corners of the building were also support columns, and would have needed explosives."

What are your qualifications to make such a statement? I have a video interview with a controlled demolition expert who's worked in the industry for 30 years saying WTC-7 could be taken down easily by blasting load-bearing interior columns.

[w0bbl3r]

my "experience" is obviously better than yours.

i havent seen demo experts saying that the building "could" have been dropped by a team, i have seen many demo experts claiming the opposite, and seen footage of drops, where you are shown the amount of explosives it takes, and where they are placed.

im telling you, they would have been EVERYWHERE!!! no-one could have possibly missed them, and with all the cameras filming, there would be no mistaking the sound they would make.

[SteveM818]

"have a look around at other controlled drops, and you will see (and hear) the difference."

I have had a look around. I've found that many experts agree that Building 7 looked like a controlled demolition. I've also found that there were many witnesses near WTC-7 on 9/11 who said they heard loud explosions seconds before and during the demolition of the building, causing them to believe that the building was brought down by explosives. I've also found an audio recording of these explosions.

[w0bbl3r]

so you have not looked at other drops?

just sought out more "evidence" of conspiracy.

what was caught on camera and heard by thousands of people in new york would have been HUGE explosive sounds, and big, bright flasshes whenever one went off.

many people reported hearing explosions because there were many explosions that day. explosions can be heard in any building fire. if you have an audio,why is it not caught on any of the video footage shot from the very base of the towers as they fell?

[SteveM818]

"saying that there were no FDNY in WTC7 would mean that they were in on it, and i dont think they would like you saying that, consiering the over 300 firefighters that died that day"

The FDNY & official reports claim there never was an effort to fight fires in WTC-7. Also, many of the firefighters own statements suggest there were bombs planted in the buildings. And according to a source close to the FDNY, many in the dept believe bombs brought the buildings down but are afraid to go public.

[w0bbl3r]

oh really? funny how these "sources" are always so well-informed, dont you think?

and what would these firefighters be afraid of?

why on earth wouldnt they come forward?

and howcome its only some of the people in the FDNY "thought" the buildings were brought down by explosives?

the ENTIRE FDNY would have to have been in on it.

there is a big difference between saying "someone says that someone in the FD THINK it was explosives", and silverstein saying he TOLD the FDNY to drop the building

[ItLingersAgain]

wobbler ..you are a liar just like them... nothing hit trade center 7 there was no-where near as much damage as in the other towers yet it fell in much the same fashion there is video evidence of them admitting they "pulled" the builing we know they are lying! and when we find ultimate proof... they'll see what happens to sick fuckers like them!

[w0bbl3r]

there is footage of silverstein saying "pull", which is a term used for firefighters. when they are told to pull, it means evacuate the building.

and if you think there was hardly any damage to WTC7 then you have only been looking at truther vids and pictures, as they never show the opposite side of the building. the side FACING the towers took huge amounts of damage. one bottom corner of the building had been entirely smashed away. look at both sides of an argument before you pick sides

[SteveM818]

And here is Popular Mechanics' own "Research Editor" Ben Chertoff explaining that the term "pull" is a controlled demolition term:

"Of course in some circles of the controlled demolition industry "Pull" is used to mean that you actually demolish a building."

-Ben Chertoff, Research Editor, Popular Mechanics

So, there's more than enough proof for you that "pull" is indeed a term that can be used when describing the demolition of a building using explosives. Cheers!

[buddhaglass]

Source for that quote?

[SteveM818]

"Source for that quote?"

What you don't believe me? LOL Just kidding. Chertoff told that to Art Bell's Coast To Coast audience on March 5, 2005. It's in the archive if you want to listen to it:

tinyurlDOTcom/6ru4qh

[SteveM818]

FYI, I found an audio mp3 excerpt from the Chertoff interview if you don't want to pay for the C2C archived show:

tinyurlDOTcom5mffmn

[w0bbl3r]

but if "pull" is only used in "some circles" of demo industry, but is a WIDELY used term for withdrawing firefighters, use common sense and ask yourself which would be the most likely reason for using it that day? bear in mind that FDNY were known to be in the building, while the idea of explosives being there has been discredited by EVERY reliable source to date.

so, FD DEFINITELY in the building, explosives....? hmmmm, lets be generous and say "maybe". i still put my money on "pull" the FDNY

[SteveM818]

w0bbl3r, if Silverstein meant "Pull the FDNY", he should have said that, but he didn't. He said "it". I've also heard there may be another video out there where Silverstein uses the actual term "Controlled Demolition" when speaking about WTC-7, but that isn't conclusive at this point in time. The History Channel refuses to release the tape.

And who's "relible source"? The government's? People who don't want to lose their jobs?

And what's your source that FD was "DEFINITELY" in the building?

[SteveM818]

"There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

-Shyam Sunder, NIST (2005)

"WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.

" -FEMA Building Performance Study, Chapter 5, 2002

"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it (WTC-7) for safety reasons." -James Glanz, New York Times, November 29, 2001

[58ravenfan]

@SteveM818 ---um no actually. PM said "pull" ment pull the building with cables so it be away fron other buildibgs when it fell.

[011EviL]

32-stone? Ohh..you must be talking about Alex Jones...get your facts straight!

[011EviL]

How Dare he make the assumption that the infowars people know how to read! WAKE UP!!

[felicity5150]

If you are that stupid and naive to believe the comical NIST report then you deserve to be a minion slave. Now go back to sleep.

[gamingeh]

Better than a report written by neonazis huggers like Alex Jones and Steven Jones.

[buddhaglass]

And you've read the entire NIST report on WTC7 already? What parts of it do you disagree with (chapter and verse, please)?

[buddhaglass]

The last post was for felicity5150.

[gamingeagle19]

I've had runins with felicity. He blocked me just for stating facts that disagreed with his "facts". He doesn't want any objecting opinion just like most truthers.

[bronco2121]

gamingeagle, just because the govt writes a report and calls it fact, doesn't make it fact. if govt facts were facts, then there would have been WMDs in iraq.

[bronco2121]

the burden is on you, buddahglass, to show what you actually agree with (chapter and verse). the NIST is making an outlandish claim, and if the report proves the buildings just fall down sometimes - you show us, your viewers.

[trufreedom87]

How did fire bring down this building when there was nothing to knock the fireproofing off of the steel and the Popular Mechanics pictures are faked!What a joke!

[gamingeagle19]

WTC7 didn't have fireproof foam. And the pictures that PM uses are the real photos you can find anywhere. get some fresh air.

[trufreedom87]

Any building that has steel beams has fireproofing!It most certainly did have fireproofing that was the law and it also had a reinforced bunker for the office of emergecy management on the thirteenth floor!Also look at the Barry Jennings interview that right there disproves the NIST report!

[gamingeagle19]

As far as I know, WTC7 had no such protection from fire.

[deliciouswoodenbadge]

Infowars is to journalism what McDonald's is to food.

[Bcuz77]

UMMM DUH

[leitermann]

stupid

[bronco2121]

the reporter from the new york times was also 'schooled'. did you notice how that idiot reporter had to ask his question three times and still didn't get an answer? the NYT is a joke paper. WTC7 had NO DEFECTS! just because fire knocked it down, doesn't mean that the building had design flaws.

[werty768]

i was the first to watch ur vid