We Have the Results and Only We Have the Results

This video is a work in progress. Thank you for the feedback.

NIST's WTC Investigation has produced an unsubstantiated report on the Twin Towers and WTC7. Thus, claims that they have produced accurate work are arguments based on the bare assertion fallacy. Since this cannot be considered scientific, appeals to NIST as the final judge of what is fact or not are appeals to unqualified authority, another fallacy. Meanwhile, both the media and the largely uninformed public fail to use the fallacies to think logically about the matter.

Staring:
Patrick Gallagher, a man who "might jeopardize public safety"
S. Shyam Sunder - "The science is behind what we said"
John Gross - "Why don't you ask a technical question"
Ben Stein - "We've got to move on"
Jonathan Barnett, BBC expert sidestepping the sulfur issue
Rick Sisson - "This would be the kind of result I would expect"
Matt Dayton, who does not blindly believe bare assertions
Jonathan Cole, 911speakout.org, The Great Thermate Debate
Shane Geiger, non-lapdog reporter
Wolf Blitzer - "but no one was sure why UNTIL NOW"
Deborah Feyerick "So why doesn't everyone buy it?"
Christoph Roeckerath - "Thank you, that was a minute"

Special thanks to the entire NCST Advisory Committee: You have put on quite a show.

National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Advisory Committee
Shyam Sunder
William Grosshandler
Lew Richard Bukowski
Fahim Sadek
Frank Gayle
Richard Gann
John Gross
Therese McAllister
Jason Averill
James Lawson
Harold E. Nelson
Stephen Cauffman

Category:

Education

Tags:

• NIST
• WTC
• 9/11
• thermite
• nanothermite
• WTC7
• Sunder

[Daddyo930]

If only NIST would submit it's reports on the collapse of buildings 1, 2 and 7 and the data used for the computer simulation of their "progressive collapse" for peer review, then we would all have the numbers. Without peer review, this gives the debunkers licence to deny the truth all day because we really can't prove anything unless NIST submits to peer review. Therein lies the conundrum. No peer review, no evidence. 16 million dollars and no peer review. Right!

[iBlindGame]

You don't need NIST's cooperation in undergoing peer review to see that their case is made solely upon fallacies and great stretches (or contractions) of the imagination to make their case fit.

There's no conundrum here. It's clear they are systematically avoiding any evidence for controlled demolition.

[SexyMelon]

Further evidence of thermitic materials was presented - and addressed - in first NIST report by Steven Jones, including video footage of thermitic compound leaking off the side of the building, strong evidence of molten and red-hot steel at the wreckage sites, and relevant experiments that remain without refutation.

This is all irrelevant, as burden of proof rest with official investigation, and to defend its decision to OMIT evidence is dishonest and criminal.

[theCRMartin11]

here is the holy grail of questions to ask NIST: Do you have scientific proof explosives were not used in the collapse of wtc tower 7? They have no such proof. They failed to do scientific research on this. They may say well there was no need to have scientifically proven because we know there was no explosives. How do you know there was no explosives used? unless you can scientifically prove there were no explosives used. You do not know, you assume based on unsubstantiated claims.

[sniped101]

you know your fallacies. I took philosophy class and forgot most of this stuff.

[Skeptic121]

For those who don't know (and care) Sunder is a Brahmin, a member of the priestly-intellectual caste of the Hindu religion. As such, he seems very arrogant and condescending because, well, he is. HOWEVER, if you listen carefully, he beats around the bush and makes the best case for his employer, the government, that he can WITHOUT telling a flat-out lie. THAT is very characteristic of Brahmins. Again, if anyone cares.

[Sandberg1972]

It's amazing how he keeps his face straight. How long will he have been practicing on this? I guess a lot. He seems such a sincere guy by his looks, but man, "the science is really behind what we've said"? Is this guy for real?

[FightTheElite]

Interesting video indeed. Let's try to spread it around a bit..

[nundeelogan]

Shane Gieger you made an asshole of yourself at the WTC 7 briefing at Nist, first you came in there with your laptop that said 911 is and inside job which right away nobody was going to take you serious, then you gave that running on question trying to get your 15 minutes of fame, also nobody turned the lights out on you cause the guy next to me back up against the wall to let people into the room and bumped the light switch which I turned back on...

[Daddyo930]

The simple fact that they did not test for explosives and used the reason that C4 would have been too loud is just mindboggling considering the fact that no eyewitness testimony regarding explosions being heard was allowed at the 911 commission hearings. Not testing for explosives in a building collapse violates standard procedure. Just pointing out facts. There are no reports of witnesses hearing explosions in the 911 commission report because they were not allowed to testify.

[SciMethod]

We agree. NIST has no good reason for flouting standard operating procedure within the scientific community. They are charlatans.

[Daddyo930]

If you examine the statement I made, it's self explanitory. I only wish to point out something that everyone with a logical reasoning brain can agree on. NIST should submit its reports and data, including the assumptions used and the all the data for the computer simulation showing "progressive collapse". There is no logical reason why NIST won't do that unless they have something to hide. As for belief in god. Who cares? That's your business.