NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed!

9/11 Truth responds to NIST with HARD FACTS & Evidence!

Please copy and re-post! Spread this like virus!
Make sure to use different search tags too!

NIST process for submitting comments: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/comments2008.html

NIST's public affairs "Fact" sheet:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

AE911Truth's letter in response to NIST:
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/richardGageAE911Truthwtc7comments.pdf

Top Ten Connections between NIST and nano-thermites:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

NIST's Interim Report on WTC 7: http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Please also look up:
NCSTAR1-9A (WTC7 summary Report)
NCSTAR1-9 (parts 1 and 2 'detailed' analysis)

http://www.ae911truth.org

2009 is the DISCLOSURE YEAR!

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Building
• 9/11
• 11
• 9-11
• truth
• NIST
• National
• Institute
• Standards
• Technology
• Report
• NCSTAR
• Shyam
• Sunder
• John
• Gross
• evidence
• thermite
• demolition

[Mi37591]

Nist is pist

[RickAstley56]

Dude great report but you missed out barry jennings?:) why do people not refer to him? He was in the building and was blown back by an explosion underneath him before both towers fell indicating that something other than the collapses of wtcs1,2 caused the fires.

[lostmotate]

like the name "truther" is an insult lol

[benjyboba]

Why do they abuse Truthers, why do they call them names. Is it because they don't like the truth. Do they not see how nist ignored many factors. REAL SCIENTISTS don't ignore any factors or possibilities as it can alter the results.If NIST had done a PROPER INVESTIGATION, then there wouldn't be any TRUTHERS on the internet. Most importantly, I hope no noe was hurt in building 7.

[Uruckingfetard22]

lol why do 9/11 debates always turn into name calling and bickering.?

[12weasel100]

@Tricky1ish LMAO the statements that claim the building was in trouble "came into play" at the time the firefighters were watching the actual fire and the building actually leaning. Based on your statements then your supposed "bombs" would have had to occur before this. Which leads to the question then how would you logically explain "bombs" indictaing "charges" going off before this but the building still stands for 7 hours instead of falling within secs like a controlled demo would. You retard

[Tricky1ish]

@12weasel100 LMAO! I did, in fact listen to statements that claimed the buildings were in trouble. But I find it odd how they came into play much later than those that claimed they heard explosions. Also, if the buildings were "leaning", wouldn't logic tell you that they would fall the way they were supposedly "leaning"? The simple facts that there were claims of explosions and the 1993 bombs, should have lead NIST to investigate for bombs not just fires that caused the collapses!

[12weasel100]

@Tricky1ish there were also statements from professionals on site that clearly made statements like the building is in trouble. The buildings are leaning and we cannot save them. It is no a matter if the building will fall but when. Seems you clearly chose to ignore those statements and substitute in yours because the others clearly conflict with your bullshit. Nothing you state is any fact that proves your bullshit. You moron.

[Tricky1ish]

@12weasel100 "NIST did not test for explosives because there was no need to. Nothing indicated that explosives were used." You are kidding, right? I believe that testing for explosives would be standard protocol. Especially after the BOMBS in 1993! Chunks of the WTC found 5 blocks away would indicate explosives. Not to mention statements from many that were there of explosions. NIST found the cause of the collapses to be from fires only because that is all they looked for! Wake up