It was designed to withstand a nuclear explosion but not a BIC lighter

Shane Geiger covered the NIST WTC7 press conference today for Infowars and experienced the lights going out when he asked a question and watched the microphone being pulled away from him. Alex Jones and Jason Bermas debrief him on the Alex Jones show today.


7:33 1.3MB

Is there a video of this?

That would make for absolutely incredible viewing if someone had this on video.

Thanks so much to Shane Geiger for being there and asking questions.

AE911Truth News Conference is now archived -- Use Player -

AE911Truth News Conference is now archived -- Use Player -


I watched it last night - the lights really go out and the gal with microphone keeps pulling it away from Shane - someone needs to youtube this - i need to get up to speed capturing video - at this time I only do audio.


Also note that the lights went out and Geiger was essentially gagged 8 minutes before the presser was scheduled to end. Any Fascist would have been proud.


National Institute of Sham Technology - an embarrassment to scientists world wide.

AJ ...again thank you so much for providing these audios !!!

AJ...I always appreciate your posts...and often wait for one of your posts on a hot topic. Thanks so much for doing this!

Part 2 - Jason Bermas & Shane Geiger

August 22, 2008

Jason Bermas (a guy with nothing but love in his heart) talks again with Shane Geiger who flew at the last minute to Maryland and covered the NIST WTC7 press conference for Infowars and had the lights turned out on him when he asked a question (CNN calls questions "bare assertions").


22:10 3.3MB

"entire portions of floors [could] be removed..."

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need. "

Does NIST understand how buildings are constructed in the 20th century? They are designed to redistribute structural integrity in the event of damage--to AVOID a catastrophic failure. It's so that they don't get sued and to protect lives.

Seeing how WTC7 was built with this obvious premise in mind--even to the point of claiming that you could take out parts of the building and it would still stand--how could office fires cause the building to collapse? Don't tell me that the fires "weakened" the steel because the building was designed to survive complete column loss and structural damage. All buildings are designed this way.

This includes the WTC towers by the way which were completely surrounded by columns on the outside and massive, 47 columns in the inside. They too were designed to survive structural damage to the building.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Office fires don't weaken steel

"Don't tell me that the fires 'weakened' the steel"

Indeed, this is the very first and basic premise that needs to be countered.

Last December, NIST stated in their conference call:

"At any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed." That is, the office fires died down in about 20 minutes at any single location in WTC 7.

An important clarification: the fires spread from location to location while consuming burnable material. But the material was consumed in about 20 minutes at any single location. After that, any of the fireproofed steel that may have been in or near that location obviously started to cool down.

And of course, massive steel members conduct heat away from the source rather effectively all the time while being heated.

Thus, the short-lived fires in WTC 7 could not have heated the steel to temperatures capable of weakening it.

I think this is all we need to debunk NIST's view that fires levelled a steel-framed skyscraper.

The purpose of a news conference

is to ask questions. It is not a debating society. Reporters know they are competing for time with other reporters, so they carefully craft their questions so they can get the information they need using the minimum of time. I realize that the points brought up by Shane were relevant, but perhaps if the packaging had been more succinct, the microphone would not have been dragged away, because he would not have provided them with the time to do so.


I have shouted down people who use Q&A sessions
for speechifying. Though Mr. Geiger spoke long enough
to ask four or five questions, I'm not sure he asked even
one, and then NIST used his antics as an excuse to end
the session early.

I wonder if any productive purpose was accomplished
by this kind of grandstanding.

Its the answers to the questions

that have been hard to come by . . . Shane ended up having the other reporters debrief him . . . the point is to get the information out . . .thus the "infowars".

This news conference was created to push BS not to answer real questions with real answers.