NIST DEBATES

NIST VIDEO REVIEWS/DEBATES

DEBATE with NIST (They removed all my threads and banned me from posting on their page. But not before I got screenshots)

Who would like to see a couple debates between NIST and myself?

Here are two of them:
http://www.facebook.com/4NIST/posts/10150655221530365?
http://www.facebook.com/4NIST/posts/153870704731683?

Let me say first of all. I may not be a scientist but I can sure hold my own. Common sense goes a long ways.
—————-
NIST DEBATE #1
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.387227901294343.108436.100000214085869&type=3
—————–
NIST DEBATE #2
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.387236437960156.108438.100000214085869&type=3
—————–
NIST DEBATE #3
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.430956350254831.85111450.100000214085869&type=3
——————

SCREENSHOTS FROM NIST DEBATE #1

Before NIST removed all three posts from their page, I was sure to take screenshots of the entire debate. I have all the screenshots from Debate 2 and 3 as well.


—————–

REBUTTAL TO NIST WTC 7 VIDEO

NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc

(Pic link: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=411897868827346)

NIST has requested that I watch this 3 minute video about the collapse of WTC 7. They have broken down 10,000 pages of research in 3 minutes. Let’s break it down.

(0:15)
“No tall building had ever collapsed primarily due to fire.”

That claim is still a FACT to date!

(0:38)
‎”WTC 7 collapsed because of fires….. We really have a new kind of progressive collapse that we have discovered here, which is a fire induced progressive collapse.”

progressive
— adj
1. of or relating to progress
2. proceeding or progressing by steps or degrees

collapse
— vb
1. to fall down or cave in suddenly.
2. to fail completely.

So Sunder is really saying steps were taken in order for the building to completely fail. Something that fire has never done to steel framed high rises.

Now what steps did NIST look at?

(0:53)
‎”NIST used detailed data…… to create the most complex computer simulation ever made.”

This one NIST?

NIST WTC7 Collapse Simulation Versus Real-Time Demolition Comparison 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUQ0xnt1iBs&

This is the same one that I posted on your wall and you banned me for posting misleading information. NIST censored the most complex computer simulation ever made.

(1:02)
‎”Falling debris from Tower 1 started fires on 10 floors in Building 7″

Let’s go back to my NIST’s first point.

“No tall building had ever collapsed primarily due to fire.”

So what happened that caused the only building in the World to ever collapse from fire or structural damage?

(1:08)
“A break in the city main from the collapse of the towers disabled sprinklers in the lower half of WTC 7, allowing fires on those floors to burn for 7 hours.”

Why would a broken water main only affect the lower half of a building? Are they implying that the sprinklers were fully functioning in the upper half?

Why weren’t fire fighters fighting the fires in Building 7 if the water sprinklers weren’t working? This was the Mayors emergency command center (23rd floor). It housed the CIA and held thousands of files of ongoing SEC investigations. Why wasn’t more done to salvage this building?

The answer is simple, they wanted this building gone as it held all the evidence on ongoing financial investigations (SEC).

Lets go back to point 1 again:
“No tall building had ever collapsed primarily due to fire.”

Even tall buildings that did not have water sprinklers installed. Just like the 1975 fire at the WTC.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=385725698111230&

(1:20)
“The NIST computer model was validated with evidence from videos, photos, witness accounts, and other data.”

Did any of those videos or photo’s show out of control fires that would be considered a severe risk to the buildings structural integrity?

When “”No tall building had ever collapsed primarily due to fire.”

Out of the witnesses questioned, did they ever speak with Barry Jennings, Vince Dementri, Fire fighters, witnesses to explosions, witnesses to molten steel, or anyone in control of security?

(1:27)
‎”It shows that heat from fires expanded long support beams, causing connections and floors to fail. So you look at the floors failing here and eventually this column 79 is going to buckle. It fails and then the entire vertical progression takes place.”

This hypothesis that a single column (#79) failure could cause a symmetrical total collapse is absurd. So this is the one step that cause a virtual collapse. Not very progressive is it?

progressive
— adj
1. of or relating to progress
2. proceeding or progressing by steps or degrees

(1:53)
‎”A chain reaction then caused other interior columns to fail in quick succession. The outside shell of the building fell”

How does NIST know this? Can they see through buildings?

If a chain reaction did occur, we wouldn’t have seen a symmetric collapse. It would have came down in sections hence the terms “chain reaction” and “succession”. Like dominoes.

As for outside shell. Are they implying that the entire core columns and floor space disappeared into thin air? Where are the 24 Center core columns? Who did the guts of the building fail while causing no visual effects on the “shell”.

(2:00)
‎”The NIST team found no evidence that explosives were involved in the collapse.”

Sunder on What Controlled Demolition Looks Like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZrcDTjkIhI

Controlled Demolition: This building collapses very similar to WTC 7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQOqnaIce0

NIST found no evidence of explosives because they did look for evidence. Independent scientists ran tests on the remains of building 7 and found signatures of Nano Thermite. Even FEMA confirmed this but choose to call it a “very unusual event” in their metallurgical examination study of the “swiss cheese” piece of wtc7 steel.

Peer reviewed Journal: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe pp.7-31 (25)
Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen.
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.” FEMA, C-13, Appendix C.6specifically: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

It’s been said that your best hypothesis [fire] has only a low probability of occurrence … And your presumption that “collapse initiation” will automatically lead to “global collapse” is unfounded.

Where are NIST’s tests on the dust?

Is NIST aware that Larry Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance carrier requesting controlled demolition?

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro – FOX NEWS
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/22/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/

(2:05)
‎”Our analysis showed that even the smallest explosive charge that was capable of bringing down the critical column in the building, had it occurred, we would have seen sound levels of 120 to 130 decibels about a half mile away. That would have been an incredibly loud sound, and that sound was not picked up by any any of the videos or witnesses we have talked to.”

There are many witnesses that heard very loud explosives. You just chose to ignore all the evidence that did not go along with your “Fire induce progressive collapse.” Here are witness accounts from first responders, fire fighters, and other witnesses. Again you ignored all of this.

“It’s blowin’ boy”
“Did you hear that?”
“Move it back, that building is about to blow up.”
“The whole thing is about to blow up, move it back.”
“Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon”
“We are walking back…cause that building is about to blow up”
“coming down soon”
“we got to move back, seven is exploding!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHtvN26yPvY (1 min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmfR35IjQds (17 Seconds)

WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

Did you ever talk to Barry Jennings, Stevn Pilla, Scott Holowach, Marcel Claes, William Ryan, Frank Sweeney, Kurt Sonnenfeld, and many others?

(2:29)
‎”The team found that WTC 7’s was generally consistent with the relevant building codes when it was built. Our highrises in this country are very, very safe. Having a collpase of this nature is a very rare event…….. The team’s report also calls for stronger codes, standards, and practices so that other buildings don;t suffer the same fate.”

Honestly NIST, if there was the slightest chance that fire can make Buildings come down at near free fall speed into it’s own foot print, then every building would have been taken down by now. For our safety of course. Also, why are Controlled demolition companies still in business if all it takes is to light some fires on a few floors.

The answer is easy….. because steel framed high rise buildings have never virtually collapsed from Fire or Structural Damage. EVER!

The only way buildings come down in that manner is by explosives or some other energetic materials. Or “pulled” but that’s another story.

(2:24)
Everything after this pont is totally irrelevant to the discussion about the collpase of Building 7.

“For more information on NIST’s World Trade Center 7 investigation go to: http:wtc.nist.gov”

The end.

NIST = FAIL
=====================

No Lies Radio: Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3apT3FSkbQ4

“Allan Rees of No Lies Radio News interviews Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST on August 21, 2008, the day NIST released its report on World Trade Center Building 7.”

REVIEW:

——-
@3:50 “Not the normal event in which we design buildings.”

The towers were designed to take the impact of the largest airliner of it’s time, a 707. This tells me that Sunder never spoke to Leslie Robertson at all during this investigation or he would have known that.
——-
@4:30 Sunder forgets to inform the audience that the professionals at the ASCE tasked at investigating the WTC collapse are teh same 4 or 5 guys that helped cover up the OKC Bombing of the Murrah Building.
——-
@5:20. Sunder claims that NIST was given $16 million dollars to investigate the collapses of the WTC buildings.
——-
@6:00… Rees lists off several quotes from notable people that witnessed “Molten Steel” and then proceeds to ask Sunder if he ever interviewed any of these witnesses.
——-
@8:00… Sunder admits that Office furnishings and Hydro carbon fires (jet Fuel) burn substantially lower than temperatures required to melt steel.
——-
@8:45 “However, when you go to the bottom of the building after the buildings have collapsed… and you have shielding of the fires due to the rubble pile on top of it. The RADIATION is contained within the shielded region and therefore the temperatures can EXCEED that which you would see in an office fire or hydro carbon fire when the buildings were standing.”

I’m not a scientist but this quote makes zero sense to me. A simple experiment can prove it.

Start a little fire and put a bowl (shield) around it. Tell me if the fire gets hotter or if it goes out. Very simple experiment.

Sunder also fails to mention that Firefighters were spraying water onto the pile shortly after collapse for weeks on end. Did this make the fires exceed the melting temperatures of steel.

This rubble pile from the aftermath of Building 7’s collapse would not generate more heat to the fires under this pile causing steel columns to melt…… That kind of thinking is pseudoscience. Fires need oxygen in order to breathe and expand. This pile is cutting off this oxygen supply.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=328764930473974&
——–
@9:00 minutes. Sunder goes onto state that NIST recovered several pieces of steel from the Towers. Well Sunder, this latest investigation was about WTC 7 and not the towers. Where are your steel samples from B7?
——–
@10:30 Rees asks if he took statements about the Molten steel from Loizeaux and Robertson….. Sunder goes onto say “Well, this is a technical investigation and not a criminal investigation.”

Does this mean the testimony from these two people should not be taken into account? No one and I repeat no one is accusing Loizeaux and Robertson of destroying the Buildings are they?
——–
@10:50…Sunder claims “we have talked to over 500 witnesses, over 100 first responders from the fire department……”

Rees ask if all these interviews are of public record.

Sunder replies…. “The findings in the interviews have been summarized and included in our report.”

Rees… “How about the actual interviews?”

Sunder…. “All the interviews were under non disclosure agreements.”

BUSTED SUNDER!

Because we all know atleast 503 witnesses were ignored by the 9/11 Commission report.
———
@12:00…. “This is no evidence that there was steel molten in the buildings when they were standing.”

Another lie Sunder…..

Photo: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=207423879274747&

21. Why does NIST state that a yellow stream of molten metal seen in some photographs pouring down the side of WTC2 was aluminum from the crashed plane, even though aluminum burns with a white glow?

“NIST reported (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding.”
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

Rebuttal:

9/11: South Tower Collapse (ABC Live)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6f9Jpfz1Vo

Starts at 25 seconds and continues until 1:45 then the building collapses 15 seconds later. NIST states that the “flow lasted approximately four seconds.” This is a blatant lie since this video is proof that the flow lasted for nearly 1 minute and 20 seconds.
———-
@12:30…. Sunder goes on about the “Molten material” coming from the corner and also states that the skin of the towers were made of Aluminum.

Look at the video for yourself. Does it look silverish to you?

9/11: South Tower Collapse (ABC Live)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6f9Jpfz1Vo

Why don;t we see this silverish material coming from the skin of teh towers consistently throughout the fires. It only happens at this one instance and the Building collapses 15 seconds later, not minutes like Sunder implies.
———
@13:00….. Rees “the fact that it was in the pile could have heated the temperatures up….. physicists say this violates the laws of physics because there is no source for the energy.”

Sunder “We disagree and I think you need to talk to experts who do this for a living.”

I already went through this above. FIRES need OXYGEN to breathe, when you take the source of oxygen away from a fire, it gets cooler, not hotter. This is basic elementary physics. Not rocket science.

I think Sunder needs to talk to some experts outside of NIST.

Someone show me an example of fire getting hotter as it’s shielded with concrete, steel and other debris. Show me one example.

Also note, Sunder fails to state that millions of gallons of water was sprayed onto the rubble piles. According to NIST, this must make the fires hotter as well. LOL
———–
@ 13:30 Rees starts to ask Sunder about the Jones report of Bi products of Thermate found in the dust samples.

Ress asks Sunder if he interviewed these witnesses and of course the obvious answer is “No, we did not….. we looked at all the alternative hypothesis.”

Another lie Sunder, because if you looked at ALL the alternative hypothesis, you would have interviewed expert witnesses that were doing independent research on such alternatives.
———–
“Another theory involved a hypothetical blast event. Our analysis calculated that the minimum charge needed to make the critical column fail would have produced a huge 130-decibel sound, audible over half a mile away. None of the videos or witness reports provided any evidence of this.”
http://cee.mit.edu/cee-in-focus/2009/spring/shyam-sunder

Shyam Sunder must be deaf or did not see all the video’s of 9/11.

Explosions on 911
http://www.youtu.be/CcRs1fv8i3I
———–
@15:20 Rees “National Fire Protection Association…. indicates that certain residues should be tested for. Shouldn’t you have tested those residues that Steven Jones found according to your own dictates?”

Sunder “Ahhh, No.”……. and then avoids the question.

It seems that NIST is above their own guidelines for fire investigation procedures.
———–
@16:00… carefully Listen to what Sunder is saying here

“the hypothesis we deemed not to be credible we decided was, were hypothesis that we needed way more information to be feasible, they are not even feasible. Just because Thermite or Thermate exists in some dust particles does not necessarily translate into Thermate being the cause of the building failure.”

Do you see what Sunder is saying? a minute before he just stated that alternative hypothesis were looked at but deemed not credible. Why? Because they didn;t even bother to research this information. NIST’s pre determined task was to come to a theory of how fires brought down the building. There job wasn;t to look at other means.
————-
@ 17:00 Rees “How can a building fall through itself through the path of greatest resistance. Doesn’t that violate one of the 5th grade laws of physics that I have learned?”

Sunder, “the things you just said do not add up to a theory, they add up to speculation.”

Please someone explain the difference between Theory and speculation? lol

Ree’s should have asked Sunder each question again and made him answer.
———–
@ 18:00 Rees asks Sunder about the advanced foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7 before it happened and did NIST interview any of these people.

Sunder…. “We are aware that an engineer or a techincal expert or a techinical advisor was giving advice to city agencies in regards to Building 7……”

Who was this techincal expert that knew Building 7 was going to collapse?

There were no fire fighter exercises going on with Building 7 at all. So a decision to stop fire fighting operations is bullshit because there were no such operations occuring with Building 7.
————-
@20:15. Rees “Can you identify that person?”

Sunder “Again…. identification of persons and personelle is not really the issue, when we are talk about our findings, we are talking about pretty credible people that have talked to us and are documented in our report. You have to read the report.”

Hmmm, credible people that can’t be named. I guess I have to read the 10,000 pages to find it. lol

Basically, NIST is saying that anyone that has information that can help us show how fires brought down the buildings are credible. Anyone else that has information showing another hypothesis is not credible.
————-
@20:40 Rees asks Sunder about Larry Silverstein. “Did you interview Mr Silverstein or the personelle in the fire department that decided to pull Buidling 7?”

Sunder “We did not have to or we did not need to interview folks who had anecdotle information.”

Sunder…. basically says that not his job…. his job is not to assign blame, they are chartered to find building safety in this country. The main focus was to base our findings on sound science.

Yet ignore all the witnesses and possible suspects with motive.
————-
@22:50 Rees talks about the Architects and Engineers and asks Sunder about collaborating with these people.

Sunder “We really do not think that would be productive.”

Nuff said. In other words NIST refuses to debate or discuss any other findings with anyone that does not believe their report. However public comments from anyone will be accepted and changes could be made.

So Sunder, you want to debate with random people on your site who has questions but you are not willing to discuss this openly with other professional Architects and Engineers.
————–
Just before 24:00.

Sunder “After the comments section is over, our investigation is complete.”

It is now NISTory!
————–
After 25 minutes they talk about the sprinkler system inside Building 7 and how the bottom half of the building had no water but the top half did.

The way Rees ends it is perfect…. he states “It’s possible that the water from the sprinklers put the fires out.”

Sunder confirms that yes, this is possible.

Notice how Sunder also says there was only fires on six floors in Building 7 and most of the fires were from the lower half of the building. Let me say this on closing his review. Fire fighters could have easily put these fires out if they wanted to. But that never happened. There were no fire fighting operations going on inside Building 7. None whatsoever.
========================

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: