Shyam Sunder Confronted with 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

On NOVA's website for "How the Towers Fell" there is an interview with Dr. Shyam Sunder who makes seemingly unfounded, speculatory excuses for the speed of the collapses, as well as for molten metal dripping from the South Tower (which Dr. Steven Jones has already explained CANNOT be aluminum), and other anomalies such as the puffs of dust, ignoring evidence to the contrary. It's a nice little interview- the interviewer does very little arguing, but does bring up the relevant topics of interest.


but what about building 7 Dr. Sunder?

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

come on NOVA

Bombs going off eye witnessess, molten steel in the basement the core the steel being shiped away, free fall from a pancake collapse come on . the NIST report never even studied the collapse itself . come on NOVA ask some real Question.

Boycott MSM

"Buidings = 70% Air" ; NIST = 100% Hot Air

Don't expect too much from NOVA, they produced that infamous 9/11 OCT special whch Steven Jones satirically referred to as "proof by computer animation". The host sounds like a complete brownoser at the end, but at least he did ask the questions.

"They took it from the top to the bottom, we're gonna take them from the bottom to the top." - Dan Wallace

"puffs of smoke"

You mean, explosive ejections of debris?

So, the building is peeling like a banana, throwing heavy steel beams hundreds of feet, but somehow there is piston-like compression creating these "puffs of smoke"?

Another thing that bothers me about such discussions is how they never talk about the close-up views of, in particular, the North Tower, where you can see the floors exploding horizontally.

If the towers were, as this guy says, "70% air", then what is creating the explosive ejection of debris and the pulverization of concrete? If it's made of so much air, why doesn't it crumple instead of firing away from the building in cannonball-like arcs?

I think the volume of these lies is beginning to affect my health...

Sunder and Nova have been debunked

by so many and in so many ways. They both vomit out government OCT. Unfortunately, since the government controls the main stream media, they also control the 'consensus trance' of many 'American Idol' Americans. But bit by bit, 9/11 truth is spreading further through the mainstream of Amerca. And phenomenally through Canada.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

Do you think it is worthwhile to....

...hammer NOVA with hot, burning 9/11 TRUTH? This is the main page for their WTC drivel:

This is what NOVA says about itself:

NOVA is the highest rated science series on television and the most watched documentary series on public television. It is also one of television's most acclaimed series, having won every major television award, most of them many times over.

This means that NOVA's lies and distortions need to be viciously attacked.

This is the title of the section leading to Sunder's hot air:

9/11 Conspiracy Theories
NOVA producer Larry Klein discusses world trade center conspiracy theories with civil engineer S. Shyam Sunder.

This is a companion section to their DVD, "Building on Ground Zero.":

Teachers Guide
Program Overview

There is a ten-page PDF teaching guide that needs to be critiqued:

Teachers Guide summary:

NOVA takes a look at what can be learned from the World Trade Center disaster.

The program (Teachers Guide):

reviews the structure of the Alfred A. Murrah building in Oklahoma City and details how the building suffered a progressive collapse when bombed in 1995.

notes that the American Society of Civil Engineers found that the World Trade Center (WTC) towers performed well when attacked and that there was no tradeoff of safety for economy in construction.

reviews findings from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) detailing how and why the WTC towers collapsed.

reports on NIST conclusions that the WTC had no structural flaws that could account for its collapse—the towers fell due to the interplay between the impact damage and fire.

summarizes some of the NIST recommendations for improving safety standards that resulted from the study of the WTC collapse.

specifies safety features being designed into China's World Financial Center in Shanghai, which will be the world's tallest building when completed.

details the safety features in the newly rebuilt #7 WTC building (the third skyscraper to collapse).

explores the question of how safe is safe enough?

The NOVA team welcomes your feedback on the broadcast and Web site. Please select the appropriate category from the list below to send your message.

(The categories below are javascript popups on this page. (So, prepare your well-reasoned, bullet-proof response in advance in a text editor and copy/paste away.):

Broadcast Correction
Web Site Correction
Podcast Comment

For those among us who are teachers, there is this section, too:

Ideas From Teachers
Be the First

Funding for NOVA is provided by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,and public television viewers.

(Perhaps viewers who contribute should reconsider making future contributions?)

The program production credits are here:

The participants were chosen for a reason. Perhaps each of these persons need to be looked into, particularly by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

Program Participants Building on Ground Zero:

Forensic Structural Engineer

World Trade Center Survivor

Chief Engineer, World Trade Center

Nat'l Inst. of Standards & Technology

World Trade Center Survivor

World Trade Center Survivor

Structural Engineer

Div. of Codes & Standards, NJ

World Trade Center Survivor

World Trade Center Survivor

World Trade Center Survivor

Building Safety Analyst

Fire Safety Engineer

Architect, Kohn Pedersen Fox Architects

Architect, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP

Architect, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP

Why was William Rodriguez not among the World Trade Center Survivors interviewed?

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

NOVA - Building on Ground Zero - Transcript

Building on Ground Zero
PBS Airdate: September 5, 2006


In 2002, NOVA depicted a scenario envisioned by many experts at the time, that the truss connections failed in the extreme heat, causing the floors to fall onto one another, precipitating the collapse.

SHYAM SUNDER: When you did it previously, you showed that the floors actually pancaked, and we did not see any evidence of pancaking in the videos or photographs we have.

NARRATOR: By creating computer-enhanced images of the exterior walls, N.I.S.T. discovered that the truss connections did not fail. In fact, the trusses stayed connected to the columns even as they sagged from the heat. They pulled on the columns, bowing them inward, nearly five feet in some areas, until the columns reached the breaking point.

SHYAM SUNDER: Suddenly the columns snapped, and, as a result, the entire top of the building came down, pretty much in freefall, because kinetic energy that was unleashed was just huge.

Just huge? Just Howard Huge, Dr. Sunder?

NARRATOR: After months of analysis, N.I.S.T. concluded that the World Trade Center had no structural flaws that could account for its collapse. It was the interplay of impact damage and fire that brought the towers down.

SHYAM SUNDER: It was the combination of the impact, the fireproofing that was dislodged, and the jet fuel fires that caused the buildings to collapse. These buildings were sound, well designed, highly innovative, and there was nothing that could have changed the outcome on 9/11.

NARRATOR: This was the same conclusion Corley had reached four years earlier and would finally close the books on the engineering of the World Trade Center.

So, gravity did all the work. Nothing said here even attempts to explain the explosive ejection of material, which included steel, concrete, and dust, from the towers that is indisputably evident in numerous videos.

I want to see Sunder frog-marched out of NIST and dropped off the top of the new WTC 7.

Q: Can you tell me more about NOVA?

A: Please visit our About NOVA page. If we haven't answered your question about NOVA or other WGBH productions to your satisfaction there, feel free to direct your NOVA or WGBH production-related questions to WGBH's Audience and Member Services office:

Audience and Member Services
WGBH Educational Foundation
125 Western Avenue
Boston, MA 02134.

Please send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to expedite your request; or call: 617/492-2777, Ext. 5400. Office hours are Monday through Friday, 9-5, and Thursdays 9-4, Eastern Time.

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

freefall trumps all

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB