NIST WTC 7 Report - Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 1

[LittleRicky63]

Well Larry Silverstein said that he diceded to "Pull it" and watched the building collapse. And police officers and firefighters heard bombs before the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

And Police officers were telling civilans to get away from building 7 because its going to collapse. And BBC news said building 7 collapsed 20 before it actually collapsed. You can clearly see it in the background on the video.

Hmmm. Who should i believe?

[WeMeServices]

This official NIST report is terrible. Look at the thousands of Architects and Engineers who questions this paid government-flattering conclusions. Some serious questions need to be dealt with.

[blavatsky3]

Remember Special Agent Craig Miller died in WTC-7 and Barry Jennings whose testimony would have blown this NIST crap to smitherines died conveniently (RIP) on 19th August 2008 just 2 days before this report is given to the PUBLIC

talking about chicken feed give us a break. Bush said explosives were used.

But Thomas Kean, 9-11 Commission head said wtc-7 was not included in the report because quote" there was not a loss of life in that Building" endquote

Jennings said there were dead people in 7

[veeraa]

Another cover-up operation like watergate I guess. Another nixon with the name bush. 50 so called experts working for 3 yrs and 20 million funding for coming up with what? Thermal expansion. You dont need a honours engg degree to say this hogwash. What non-sense is that abt "This building is obviously not built for airplane collisions".  Even a 20+ storey is built to resist earthquake, high speed winds/gales & collisions right.

[veeraa]

Which high school did this guy goto? I'll not let this guy build even a toilet in my house let alone country. Just looking at his body language. All lies. How can you bring yourself to say such blatant lies & live with yourself in-spite of the threats and carrots. Dr. Daniel Ellsberg also hails from that country I suppose. Being an indian you should make yourself & india proud man. For once get out of yourself and come out with the truth. Its not worth living the life of fear or compromise.

[GnosticNinja]

watch?v=Bjezhp0rL3M many explosions

watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU molten

watch?v=tAjkq25LAxM Chandler bitchslaps NIST with 6th Grader physics.

watch?v=1eSVsid7eKE 85 floor w/no fire, core blasted out.

watch?v=hmZvUfiVnug New picture proof News Report

watch?v=i6DQjBfbn24 peer reviewed unignited Thermate confirmed

watch?v=qSokEXdFjaQ Expert pilot says no fuckin' way

W's*newser*com/story/24950/wtc­-blueprints-found-in-trash*htm­l

911research*wtc7*net/wtc/evide­nce/blueprints*html

[AlmightyJerk]

I like the way he feels the need to put emphasis on credibility.

Like this is a 3am infomercial trying to "Sell" you something, that sucks.

5:03 "...about 15 experts" ?

Maybe they need to construct a computer model to figure that one out for them?

5:58 "we did not find any evidence of explosives..."

But didyou look for any?

LOl Lets compare a jar lid to a friggin beam. I know...!

But dayum, that is funny.

Sry I couldn't help myself any longer.

[JSSTyger]

7:00 - not due to diesel fuel tanks

7:18 - the collapse of World Trade Center 7 was primarily due to fires.

[tele544]

Its amazing these people get paid so much money (OUR TAX DOLLARS) to LIE TO US. They think we are idiots and don't know a controlled demo when we see one.

[Crowmagnum93bham]

A COMPUTER simulation is all they fucking have?? Let's not forget 1 MAJOR variable, MAN HAS TO MAKE THE COMPUTER PROGRAM!! The computer has no A.I. that could allow it simulate what could happen in reality.

[ssnatcherss]

Haha, the computer simulations are in on the conspiracy too!

[CNN911Fakes]

ge, ge, gaaahhhh

man vommit stinks so much!

[2JOHNNYT]

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE...

...and oh yeah, WTC on Fire too, cause thats all that brought it down, right? RIGHT!

[uyoudecide]

no evidence of explosives was found ! but we didnt test the steel for explosives lmao i mean all you people that accuse truthers of being stupid are the biggest hypocrites on the earth

[w0bbl3r]

what would testing the steel prove???

thats the dumbest question i have ever read from one of you loonies

[smitty121981]

wObbl3r, testing the steel would give a more definitive answer as to what the hell caused a "severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication" as described by FEMA in 2002.

[TruthersRAlwaysWrong]

@uyoudecide

I'd rather be a hypocrite than a dumb Truther any day of the week. But thanks for the comment, much appreciated!

[xSammBAM]

you can't find something when you don't look for it.

this is a scam. similar to the federal reserve and global warming.

welcome to mind control. the media is lying to you once again america. do you even notice?

[ChrisJ4567]

Too bad for the blowjobbers. Yet again, no evidence of explosives or thermate used in the WTC.

[smitty121981]

no evidence of thermate? Look at Appendix C of the FEMA report

[ClunkityClunk4Truth]

The one that states there's no signs the metal heated up to the temperature that thermate reaches?

[smitty121981]

FEMA Appendix C:

"Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel."

they concluded "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event...A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed"

FEMA called for more investigation, and NIST completely ignored it!! How could they ignore liquefied steel!?!

[ClunkityClunk4Truth]

Do you read what you post?

[Esnir]

"and NIST completely ignored it!! "

Not really, nist investigated the collapse of the buildings, not what happened to the steel during the time it was heated up in the ruble pile, which burned for several weeks after 911....

[smitty121981]

Yes NIST completely ignored it!!!

"nist investigated the collapse of the buildings" YES! So don't you think they would be concerned with anything pertaining to the structural integrity of the steel?? Such as a corrosive reaction that LIQUEFIED the steel?!? Another govt agency called for more investigation, and NIST failed to even mention this report, they acted as if it never even existed!!! That's a cover up my friend! Read FEMA Appendix C!!!

[Esnir]

hte NIST report is open for debate. If you feel that they ignored something, you can write to them and ask them why they ignored it, or ask them to include it. If NIST refuses to do so, you can appeal to that decision.

The corrosive reaction most likely happened during the weeks after 911, when the fire in the ruble pile accumulated the heat up to 1350°F

[smitty121981]

Yes! I absolutely sent them my comments!

1350 F in the rubble (doesn't sound like a fire to me) OK, but even that doesn't explain the 1800 F temperatures reported in FEMA Appendix C!! It is standard procedure to test for accelerants (like thermite) any time that large amounts of molten steel or concrete are found after a fire, but NIST failed to test for any residues!!! Their entire report was done w/o a single piece of physical evidence!! It's a cover up!!

[Esnir]

"Yes! I absolutely sent them my comments!"

Keep us informed about it :o)

There were no large amounts of molten steel/concrete around after a fire. Also, according to NIST a normal office fire burning uncontrolled was enough to make the structure fail like it did.

And that is what is important: what makes such a structure fail, and how to prevent that in the future. That is what the nist investigation is about.

[smitty121981]

"according to NIST a normal office fire burning uncontrolled was enough to make the structure fail like it did" that doesn't make it true!!

Riddle me this:

1)How do ordinary office fires account for the 1000 C temperatures and the highly corrosive reactions observed in the FEMA report?

2) Why was NIST justified in not even mentioning this report?

Don't mention the rubble piles unless you are willing to acknowledge that there was molten metal up to 6 weeks after the event.

[Esnir]

1 - they don't, as that temperature hasn't been reached in the building, but in the ruble pile. So it is unrelated to the collapse.

2 - because NIST states that ordinary unmaintained office fire burnign for 7 hours was enough to make the building collapse. And that is what the investigation was about: find out the weakeniss in the building and provide recommandations to prevent this in the future in similar buildings.

[Esnir]

"Don't mention the rubble piles unless you are willing to acknowledge that there was molten metal up to 6 weeks after the event."

Odd type of reasoning.

It is a fact that the ruble pile heated up to 1350°F What does that have to do with molten metal? Are you suggesting that molten metal heated the pile for 6 weeks?

According to the FDNY, it was fire that did it. And at 1350° several materials, including metals, can melt.

[smitty121981]

Do you work for NIST? Or do you just like the way their cornhole tastes?

NFPA guidelines state that molten steel is an indicator of an exotic accelerant (such as thermite) being used, and it is therefore standard procedure to test for the residue. NIST refused to do this. That's a cover up. Plain and simple.

Also, please explain to me how an ordinary smoldering rubble pile can form a eutectic reaction with steel...

P.S. 1000C is much hotter than 1350F, so stop acting like they're the same!

[Esnir]

"Do you work for NIST?"

Typical troofer logic.

"NFPA guidelines state that molten steel is an indicator of an exotic accelerant"

Not really, as FEMA has pointed out, the steel could have molten due to hot corrosion in an environment that contained sulfur.

"please explain to me how an ordinary smoldering rubble pile can form a eutectic reaction with steel..."

See above

I never said they were the same. 1350°F comes from nasa.

"stop acting like they're the same!"

[smitty121981]

"Are you suggesting that molten metal heated the pile for 6 weeks?"

I am suggesting that molten metal 6 weeks later is a VERY strange occurrence. If you know of another office fire which resulted in molten metal for 6 weeks after the fact, let the world know!

The only reasonable explanation I have heard is from Steven Jones, who suggested that it could be due to large quantities of thermite which contains it's own oxygen, and can therefore sustain a reaction for a long time under the rubble.

[Esnir]

"I am suggesting that molten metal 6 weeks later is a VERY strange occurrence."

Why?

If fires burned for 6 weeks, with heat accumulating up to 1350°F, i see no problem that several materials, including metals, were molten.

Any idea how much thermite you need to maintain lots of metal molten for weeks?

Your beloved Jones doesn't answer that question.

[Esnir]

"If you know of another office fire which resulted in molten metal for 6 weeks after the fact, let the world know!"

It wasn't 6 weeks after the fact: the fact (e.g. the fires) were still burning in the ruble pile, weeks after 911.

Not an unusual occurence, you can find articles about underground fires in the US, estimated to burn for over 2 centuries.

They tried to put one out decades ago, but failed completely.

[smitty121981]

I asked for an example of another office fire, and you give me something COMPLETELY unrelated. I assume you're talking about coal burning? WTF!! You LOSE!!!

[Esnir]

"I asked for an example of another office fire"

Which is quite funny, because we aren't talking about an office fire, but about a burning pile of ruble.

[Esnir]

"You LOSE!!!"

Hmm, so this whole discussion is nothing more than a game to you?

Kinda figures, don't you think?

[smitty121981]

"Hmm, so this whole discussion is nothing more than a game to you?"

No, it is a debate, one of utmost importance, and you have repeatedly ignored what I have said, or you try to turn the conversation elsewhere (coal fires as proof of a eutectic reaction occurring in a collapsed office building - WTF?) - and you have completely failed to make any kind of convincing argument for your unwavering loyalty to the criminals at NIST. Your logic is: NIST said so, therefore it is truth.

[Esnir]

"No, it is a debate, one of utmost importance"

The only thing you do is mumble about the hot corrosion of steel discovered by FEMA, which wasn't addressed by NIST. You completely fail to explain why you believe the collapse scenario described by NIST is impossible, according to you.

Also, you claim the burning of the ruble pile is comparable with an office fire...

There is absolutely no logic in what you are stating.

[smitty121981]

I bring up the FEMA report so adamantly because this is a case of NIST directly ignoring FEMA's recommendations and NFPA guidelines, and yet still call their own report comprehensive. I believe this to be something that can be argued and won in court.

I agree, there is no logic in making a direct connection between scattered office fires in WTC7 and a rubble pile.  So NIST is highly illogical by your logic :)

[Esnir]

"there is no logic in making a direct connection between scattered office fires in WTC7 and a rubble pile"

Then why do you demand to get a comparisation between what happened in the ruble pile and other office fires?

You absolutely make no sense at all..

[smitty121981]

OK, I'm going to do this one more time only, because you seem to like circular conversations that go no where.

The reaction MIGHT have happened in the pile, it MIGHT have happened while the building was standing. Neither of us knows because NIST did not investigate this like they should have, and NIST therefore produced a misleading report.

[Esnir]

The task of NIST was to find out what could have caused the global collapse and to come with recommendations on how to prevent that in the future. NIST has complied with that task by showing that normal uncontrolled office fires were sufficient to make the structure collapse.

NIST also pointed out that Thermite, explosives and such weren't used.

[smitty121981]

Wow Esnir,

Your unwavering loyalty in the face of an obvious coverup, and your ability to pretend to answer while not actually addressing the matter at hand, astound me.

[Esnir]

"Your unwavering loyalty in the face of an obvious coverup"

Coverup? What kind of coverup? That according to you, the building contained some kind of material that shouldn't be there but aided in the collapse of the structure?

And you base that on steel samples found at ground zero that have been corroded by the heat in the ruble pile in the weeks after 911?

[Anders785]

Esnir:

NIST did not investigate whether or not explosives were used. They were forbidden to do so.

Their reports are answering the question: if explosives weren't used then what caused the collapse? This is the best they came up with.

[Esnir]

@Anders785

I think you are making this up, as even in the interviews with NIST, they speak about how they investigated the possible use of explosives.

Besides that: even the firedepartment has declared that they expected the building to collapse late in the afternoon because of the state it was in during the fire burning inside the building.

If that building cannot collapse due to fires, why would the FDNY fear it would?

[23456D]

Inaccurate.

Sunder said they considered controlled demolition up to the point of assuming someone would have had to carry a 100lb bag into the building, decided this was unlikely, and investigated no further. No math, no model of what a CD scenario would have looked like. As for FD foreknowledge of 7's collapse, I'm as interested in the source of that information as I am in Giuliani's "someone came in and told us that the world trade center was going to collapse".

[23456D]

Short of specific knowledge of a CD, perhaps the unprecedented collapse of the towers might have fed uncertainty about structural integrity in other burning buildings. Interesting that that fear has dissipated in the intervening years as no other buildings have behaved the way these 3 did on 9/11. But it's like Sunder asserts, I guess. A new scientific phenomenon that had never been a factor before and might never be a factor again. It's just a coincidence that it happened that day.

[Esnir]

@23456D

"might have fed uncertainty about structural integrity in other burning buildings."

it has indeed.

And the fdny noticed that wtc7 was leaning, moving, making noises and had debris falling out of it.

All signs that the structural integrety was gone.

[Kan2209]

@23456D Some might say, quite a coincidence. one would have to go and have a look at other buildings built by the same people as the WTC, and see if those buildings have these same "flaws".

The conspiracy garbage is mind raping, and I havent heard of any realistic scenario. If they pulled this building, then it doesnt mean that the WTC wsa hit by rockets. I would love some realism, but that seems to be quite impossible to find in U.S. Can someone point me to realism please?

[Esnir]

@23456D

No, they considered the smallest amounts of explosions needed to make the building collapse (e.g. attaching explosives to the one column that lead to the complete structural failure) and investigated if there is any evidence for such an explosion.

They didn't find any.

[Anders785]

Esnir: No evidence for explosion.

"A "Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing the critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, ..."

Essentially, NIST is saying that WTC 7 was not a demolition because a big boom would make a big sound."

911re view.c om/ articles / ryan/ NIST_ WTC7. ht ml

[Esnir]

@Anders785

Indeed, as we all can see on several videos, wtc7 just imploded, without any sound of explosive charges.

[Anders785]

There are some videos were several firefighters, and others - I believe them to be in the hundreds, are saying that's what they heard. This both before and during the collapses. Try this video: watch ?v =SXD3bAbZCow

However, one thing about nano-thermite, a military grade explosive which studies have found at the site, is that it doesn't cause a lot of sound when ignited, depending on which substance it is combined with.

[Esnir]

@Anders785

nano thermite isn't a military grade explosive.

the video you linked to is a typical collections of out-of-context quotes.

Like the first quote: those firemen are merely using simile to describe how they experienced the collapse of wtc2. 350 of their buddies were killed during the collapse of wtc1/2

Trying to suggest that the firemen knew about the demolition and not doing anything to get justice for their killed buddies is quite offensive.

[Anders785]

Yes it is an explosive. You are just masking the fact that when it is combined with other substances it becomes volatile enough to be graded an explosive.

As for the firefighters not doing anything - what do you know about it? Have you checked the various movements demanding independent investigations to see if they are members there?

I have provided credible eyewitnesses that there were explosions and an int. peer-reviewed study that found remnants of explosives in the dust.

[Esnir]

@Anders785

all you provided are out of context quotes and dubious claims about explosions.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Anders785]

Esnir, I provided a study performed by Dr. Niels Harrit and 8 other scientists that found explosives in the dust from the WTC. Check out their credentials: htt p:// cipshare. co m/NielsHarrit_o rg/. He supervises Ph.D. students!

I also provided the credible eyewitness reports of firefighters and others saying that explosions occured.

And all you say is that I provided "out of context quotes and dubious claims ..."?

You strike me as being very biased and as having a hidden agenda!

[Esnir]

@Anders785

i've seen the report of harrit and steven jones.

Steven jones has spoken about thermite since 2006, and now finally claims he found it.

I don't buy it, i don't see how a very thin layer of nano thermite can heat up steel beams enough to make them fail.

explosions don't mean bombs. People also often describe loud sharp noises as the sound of an explosion. Doesn't mean anything.

The fact you believe i have a hidden agenda speaks for itself.

[Anders785]

Esnir,

Nano-thermite cuts right throw steel. Here is a video were it was mixed with paint and painted onto a steel beam.

"Conspiracy Theory 9/11 Jesse Ventura Part 2 of 4 Episode 2"

Do you see the white smoke?

"9/11: South Tower molten metal stabilization by JKeogh"

When thermite reacts it produces just that -white smoke.

And eyewitness accounts doesn't mean a thing? Certainly not when they directly contradict your version, right?

[Esnir]

@Anders785

Yes, eye witness accounts do mean anything.

But not your out--of-context version of it.

Also, your thermite paint doesn't explode. So you are contradicting yourself.

your video doesn't show the failure of a vertical steel beam.

And even if it did, if such hot thermite fires appeared in the core of the building, how could it burn without setting the rest of the building on fire? Why were there no reports of fires in the core at lower levels?

[Esnir]

@23456D

about the fdny: Chief O Brian of the fdny has stated why he believed the building would collapse and why he decided to clear the area in order to create a collapse zone around it.

You can also find interviews with firemen on youtube and on the website of firehouse magazine.

[Anders785]

Esnir,

A simple google search would have shown that I am not 'making this up'.

Here is one link:

hartford advocate. co m /article.cfm ?aid = 5546

We examined over 200 pieces of steel and found no evidence of explosives, Neuman said.

We know, we said (even more apologetically), but what about that letter where NIST said it didnt look for evidence of explosives?

[Anders785]

Part 2,

Right, because there was no evidence of that.

But how can you know theres no evidence if you dont look for it first?

If youre looking for something that isnt there, youre wasting your time and the taxpayers money.

[Anders785]

Here NIST themselves say that they Did Not test for explosives:

h ttp: / / wtc .nist . gov / pubs / fact sheets / faqs _8_2006. ht m

No. 12.

[Esnir]

@Anders785

you said they were forbidden to investigate wether or not explosives were used.

None of your replies give any support for that assumption.

Also, they are about wtc1/2, while this video is about wtc7.

[Esnir]

@Anders785

you said it was forbidden for nist to test for explosives.

So far, you haven't provided anything to backup that claim.

[Esnir]

"coal fires as proof of a eutectic reaction occurring in a collapsed office building - WTF?"

What utectic reaction occurring in a collapsed office building? The ruble pile burned for weeks after the event with heat accumulating up to 1350°F, as recorded by NASA. So the most likely reason for the hot corrosion where the circumstances in the ruble pile, AFTER the collapse, not before.

[smitty121981]

oh man, not the 1350 figure again, give it a break already it doesn't mean anything for your argument that NIST is fully correct and flawless.

[Esnir]

Typical troofer black and white thinking: either the report is completely flawless, or it is completely wrong...

Anyway: you don't agree with the NIST findings, but you fail to explain why their findings are wrong. All you do is mumble about the hot corroding of steel discovered by FEMA, which NIST doesn't address....

You also fail to explain why that hot corroding could not have happened in the weeks after 911, while the pile was hot enough to do so...

[Esnir]

"nother govt agency called for more investigation, and NIST failed to even mention this report"

Yup, as it isn't the task of NIST to investigate what happened to the steel and other material in the ruble pile, that burned for weeks after 911.

The task of NIST was to find out what could have made the building collapse, and NIST concluded that ordinary fires were sufficient. No incidiaries or whatever needed.

[smitty121981]

So I guess you just like the taste. To each their own...

1. You say it would take too much thermite to produce molten metal, but O2 starved fires could do it on their own? WTF!

2. 1350 IS NOT HOT ENOUGH TO PRODUCE THE 1800 RECORDED IN THE REPORT SO STFU ABOUT IT!!!

3. NIST failed to even mention the FEMA report which says "It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure." It's goddamn cover up and you know it!!!

[Esnir]

1 - what oxygen starved fires? Why would they be oxygen starved? For some reason, the CT movement believes that oxygen is a hard to find gas. They said the same about the twin tower fires, as if fires in an open space office building, with a large hole in it due to a plane impact would have trouble finding oxygen..

2 - besides the point

3 - again: the nist report shows that ordinary fires can cause the global collapse.

[smitty121981]

1. O2 starved because it's a pile of rubble you moron, haven't you ever started a campfire?

2. LOL - you got owned!

3. No, no, no, they never showed how global collapse could happen, they CLAIMED that fire caused one column to fail, and then they act like the rest was inevitable. AND THEY FAILED TO MENTION THE FEMA REPORT MAKING THE NIST REPORT INCOMPLETE AND MISLEADING!!!!!

[Esnir]

1 - still a bogus statement. Why would it be oxygen starved? Because you believe a pile of ruble prevents oxygen to get to the fire?

2 - Nope, you bring up unrelated stuff, without providing any evidence or explanation for it. So besides the point.

3 - FEMA came to the same conclusion: Fire alone most likely destroyed wtc7. NIST looked further into it, and concluded that the failure of 1 critical column lead to the global collapse.

Nothing misleading about that

[AshMan32]

Blast? No, no, Thermate! Theres a diference buddy.

[streakingcameraman]

Doesn't matter, it wasn't there.

[smitty121981]

thanks for sharing.

I have submitted my comments on the report, and anyone else who can see something wrong should do the same. It's such a weak report, do your part and tear them a new one! But we only have a few weeks to formally submit public comments... so hurry!

[streakingcameraman]

You see, this is just a summary. There are about 1000 pages of the entire report on building 7. Read all these pages and tell me if its that weak.

[smitty121981]

I have read the entire previous NIST report and am making my way through this one. I have read the entire section where they consider a blast scenario, and yes I can tell you it's very weak. The only evidence they consider is the sound a blast would make, and they lie and say that no sound of a blast was caught on video or described by witnesses. They then conclude that no controlled demolition took place...

[smitty121981]

So basically, they only had one reason for thinking there wasn't a controlled demolition (auditory) and it was categorically false! They completely ignored all credible evidence for demolition and failed to even mention many important things such as the high temperature corrosion attack that liquefied steel in WTC 7 as reported by FEMA in 2002. The study concluded that further research was needed. How could NIST not investigate that further?!?

WEAK!!!!!!!!!!

[streakingcameraman]

Wow, you know why they never focused too much on explosives? They wanted to find the real reason behind the collapse. They found it, that debunks explosives without actually going into it. Explosives wouldn't be needed, therefore, it's more than overwhelming more believeable that the explosives weren't there.

[dsglop]

That's like asking why didn't they cover Godzilla or King Kong destroy them with their fists.These people are such morons.

[streakingcameraman]

Hell, that's more believeable.  There hasn't been a study one on that so why don't the truthers run with it.....LOL.

[dsglop]

I'm amazed they mentioned the bombs at all.Those losers should be proud they were even acknowledged.

[antesunara]

An idiot would't belived this shit...

[felicity5150]

Dr. Sunder = Traitor to the Republic + Embarrassment to the scientific community.

WTC7 = Controlled Demolition

9/11 = False Flag Inside Job

Wake up people!

[streakingcameraman]

Yep, you must be a great scientist to rebuttle him and 50 other scientist and experts. Yep, I'll believe that when Leprechuans start dating my lawn knomes.

[veeraa]

And who is this upholding these 50 guys as scientists and their opinions as an expert opinions without even basic physics education? I'm sure if you apply your school physics and calculate you see the blunder.

[LUKAvac2]

Program developed in NIST

LOL

[Bcuz77]

damn liars

[streakingcameraman]

Yeah, and you Richard Gage, Sofia, etc are not? They have far less evidence but the people who have the money to do the study are the liars. No, buddy, your just stuck in lala land.