Support 911Blogger


A "Pull No Punches" Interview with Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead WTC investigator for NIST on No Lies Radio.

Shyam SunderWTC7NISTNoLiesRadio.org
Click Here To Listen -- http://noliesradio.org

Building 7 Collapse Interview with Dr. Shyam Sunder of N.I.S.T.
Coming up Sunday, August 24th at 1:30pm Pacific - 4:30pm Eastern - 20:30 GMT
Repeated Monday, August 25th at 1:30pm Pacific - 4:30pm Eastern - 20:30 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcasts.



Last Thursday, August 21st, No Lies Radio News brought you live coverage of the N.I.S.T news conference on their final report on the collapse of World Trade Tower Building 7 and we followed immediately with a live broadcast of the AE911Truth.org news conference with their response showing the flaws in the N.I.S.T report. That day, Allan Rees, of No Lies Radio News, was granted an interview with Dr. Shyam Sunder, who presented the report at their news conference and who is the lead WTC investigator for NIST.

This is a PULL NO PUNCHES interview you do not wish to miss!!

"Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" Respond to NIST

To hear Richard Gage and other professionals respond to the NIST lie, listen to the "AE911Truth Press Conference" which immediately followed the NIST Press Release http://www.ae911truth.org/actionalerts/
-
Anyone can sign the petition at www.AE911Truth.org. Support Richard Gage and other professionals...sign the petition.

WTC 7 "Fire" Conclusion Blatantly Contradicts FEMA Report

NIST Concludes "Fire" Caused WTC 7 “Collapse” when FEMA Report Concluded Fuel Tank Explosion had "low probability” of Knocking Down Tower

NIST claims "fire" had better chance of knocking down tower than planted explosives in bizarre response to interview question

By Arabesque

NIST has finally released their final report into the collapse of Building 7, which collapsed inexplicably on 9/11. The New York Times quoted Sunder who said, "[The] reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery... It did not collapse from explosives or fuel oil fires.” Earlier, Sunder was scratching his head, saying, "We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." Similarly, the collapse baffled FEMA who lamely concluded, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” In other words, FEMA thought that a diesel fuel explosion would have been improbable as a cause for the collaspe of WTC 7, but now NIST is asserting that only mere "fires" knocked it down?
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

This is really good

Nice job.

FEMA spoke of the enormous

So to recap!

FEMA spoke of the enormous potential energy of the fuel laden tanks in the building and concluded that even with this potential energy the likelihood of column failure was highly improbable.Now NIST are saying that diesel fuel had no role in the collapse,therefore the potential energy remained a mere potential ,and yet even without this additional energy the fire induced collapse is plausible.

This is akin to saying an armored personnel carrier crashing into a concrete wall would probably not demolish it,but a Ford Pinto not only could demolish the concrete wall it is a fact that it actually did.

It is highly relevant what FEMA concluded because they were absolutely right.The brutal fact is that if FEMA were right then NIST are wrong and not just wrong,stupendously wrong.

FEMA did not talk...

... about a fuel tank *explosion*, but about the energy potential of burning diesel fuel.

To say that FEMA considers an *explosion* of a diesel tank to have a low probability is highly misleading.

The debunkers will point out that FEMA talked about burning diesel fuel and that NIST thought that there was not enought of it. Or something like that.

original source

The FEMA report is not clear on this issue. Here is the original source:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

I'd like to know where the "explosion" theory originated. The FEMA report does not explicitly say their: "theory does not exclude the possibility of an explosion"
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Well this should be an interesting interview...

Specifically, how Sunder is going to weasel around the questions...

He'll probably say:

"We have produced a 1000 pages report, read it first and then we can have a discussion"....

I believe it's 77 pages

& whomever is interviewing him, should read it.

Fred & truthoverprofit...you guys have a great sense of humor!

Here is the video reference to those phrases ya'll mentioned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v90RioFSB4M

Thermal Expansion?

from Dictionary.com

The definition of:

SHAM

-noun

1. something that is not what it purports to be; a spurious imitation; fraud or hoax.
2. a person who shams; shammer.
3. a cover or the like for giving a thing a different outward appearance.

verb-

8. to make a false show of something; pretend.

Gather round Gather round for this nickname assignment ceremony.

Since I believe your NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7 is bogus, and because it will make your name easy to remember......

......Dr. Shyam Sunder.........I hereby christen thee........

DOCTOR SHAM !!!!!

Shillin' Wonder

Some one ask Sham Sunders the following question:

If debris from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 did not scoop out the building and contribute to the collapse nor did diesel tank fires, what in the hell, Mr. Sunder, triggered the explosion that nearly killed Barry Jennings and his co-worker while in WTC 7?

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." -1993-John Skilling, Head Structural Engineer WTC Towers

Good question. Here are others

1) According to NIST, too, the fires were normal office fires that moved about while consuming burnable material. The burnables burned out in about 20 minutes in any one location, as NIST also points out. How could such fires heat any fire-protected, insulated steel to more than 200 degrees Celsius?

Cf. the table on p. 216 of this engineering document:

http://www.terasrakenneyhdistys.fi/suunnittelijoille/hitsatutprofiilit/H...

The lowest graph represents the temperature increase of a fire-protected steel support, over time, in a standard office fire.

In their December conf call, Sunder gave the idiotic explanation that once heated, the steel was still hot for a long time. But of course, that does not change the fact that the steel was COOLING DOWN after the exposure!

2) The calculations discussed in the following thread suggest that the maximum amount of expansion of a 16-meter steel beam, apparently when heated uniformly (which they could not be in the real world), would be less than 10 centimeters at 400 degrees Celsius (the temperature NIST claims the steel somehow managed to reach when the failure occurred):

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17293#new

So that would be a 5-centimeter expansion in both directions. How could even such a minute expansion in ideal conditions have any effect?

Questions

Who turned off the alarms (put them in "TEST" mode) at 6 am on 9/11?
Did the Alarms being shut down also disable the sprinkler system?

Be careful!

NIST did not rule out diesel fuel fires nor the mechanical damage aka scoops, they only say that there was no significant contribution to the failure in their collapse modelling.

diesel fuel: page 11,12 of http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

Scoops: page 34

Another question....

Why would the sprinkler system keep the building from collapsing when literally across the street, firefighters can be seen in several pictures using high pressure hoses on WTC 6?

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." -1993-John Skilling, Head Structural Engineer WTC Towers

Congratulations Kevin on scoring this interview!

I hope you won't mind making him VERY uncomfortable. Such as, where did the iron spheres come from ? How about the molten metal? Should we all avoid skyscrapers from now on, since they can unravel at a moment's notice?

Show him the short video of

Show him the short video of the hotel (was it in Spain?) that burned like a torch for almost 24 hours and ask why it didn't collapse within seconds into dust .

Selective Thermal

Selective Thermal Expansion.... an even newer phenomenon
___________________
Together in Truth!

NIST needs more psychologists

I think WTC 7 was just overcompensating for it's own insecurity. It had always been overshadowed by it's bigger brother and sister WTC 1 and 2. Nobody ever payed any attention to little old oblong WTC 7. It was always the big tall twins.

But on 911 WTC 7 would show everyone that it could do anything the twins could do but better. So to spite those attention grabbing twins WTC 7, without being hit by a plane, collapsed itself right down just like the others into an even neater and tidier pile than the others.

WTC 7 finally showed everyone!

What WTC 7 didn't realize was that it wouldn't even be seen. The media just didn't care about a tiny 47 story oblong building.

That poor building should be happy that someone cared enough to ask for a report. Unfortunately, the nice smart people at NIST failed to recognize the emotional imbalances that plagued the sad little building.

(This explanation makes more sense than the NIST report)
___________________
Together in Truth!

ROTFL

That made my day! Please spread that far and wide.

Let's not underestimate the effect of humor, shall we?

Sunder's full name

Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder

Ask about the fema report

Ask questions about this report.....
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
They need to be held accountable for this...FEMA did have samples from the WTC including steel from WTC 7 and says this in the report ......

"C.2 Sample 1 (From WTC 7)
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel."

and also in the report....
"Summary for Sample 1

1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

3.The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

Questions: Please consider the following

Please consider asking him the following:

1- Specifically, how do burning cubicles, paper, carpet, etcetera, cause the concrete floor to expand? Is it necessary for this phemomenon to occur on the floors without fire for the 7-10 second implosion to have occurred?

2- You did not specify the exact collapse sequence. Furthermore, the animated model you used is a generalization of your theory. Do you have a model which specifically sets out the exact collapse sequence, with the specific mode of collapse per beam and per floor and the time it would take for each phenomenon to occur?

3-Dr. Astaneh-Asl (who performed studies on WTC 7 for the National Science Foundation) stated that WTC 7 was one of a number of "garden variety" structures. If there are other structures like WTC&, are they not in immediate danger of collapse due to normal office fires? All it would take was faulty sprinkers and office fires, correct? Should there not be law suits against the contractors, engineers and other parties responsible for placing individuals in danger at present. People are working in these buildings at this moment. A fire could cause thermal expansion and collapse of the building. The existing structures constructed in a similar fashion are ticking time bombs--so to speak.

4-DO YOU SUPPORT THE RELEASE OF THE PHOTOS AND VIDEO OF THE SOUTH SIDE OF WTC 7 UPPER AND LOWER LOBBY (CLOSE UP) AND TRIAGE AREA AS REQUESTED IN FOIA REQUEST 07-76, AND OTHER RELATED PHOTOS CURRENTLY WITHHELD BY THE GOVERNMENT?

5-DID YOU STUDY PHOTOS OF MOLTEN METAL OR SEEMINGLY MOLTEN METAL?; Ref:, See, Internet Archive, supra note 22, and see notes (regarding the limited number of stills and videos presently available depicting the upper and lower lobby areas of 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001), supra note 22. See also, James M. Williams, President of the Structural Engineers of Utah, SEAU News, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers of Utah, Volume VI, Issue II (October 2001), where Williams stated that the FBI actually made decisions as to which photographs would be broadcast to the public. Specifically, Mr. Williams stated: “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. What concrete wasn’t pulverized into dust will continue to be removed for weeks to come. The structural steel is being removed and shipped by barge to be recycled.
All photographs shown on television, shot-on-site were pre-approved by the FBI. We were shown photographs that were not released for public view,” available at (http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf.). Note that the issue of obtaining photographs and video of alleged running molten metal beneath ground zero is an issue for a separate FOIA request, and is not the subject of the present request.

6-Would you be willing to testify under oath subject to the laws of perjury before a Senate Committee regarding your findings and conclusions under a new administration in 2009?

If he...

Name calls, or insinuates that we have psychological problems for questioning the official account then in my book, he loses all credibility.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

....listening now...

...over a thousand interviews!!!...(non-disclosure basis?!)
...Sham won't answer the question about the molten steel in the pile!!
...Sham admits to knowing that some evidence of thermite was found!!...but he throws it out like it is not significant.
...talk about "stopping firefighting actions at around 2:30pm" and foreknowledge of building coming down.
...mention of over 400 Architects & Engineers (AE911Truth), but Sham does not think it would be productive to consult them.

Fire put itself out

Sham stated that the fire on the upper floor was either put out by the sprinklers or went out on its own. If the fire went out on its own, was the office material different on these upper floors than on the others?

WOW

After hearing the interview all I can say is wow! Kudos to noliesradio, nice job of exposing this coverup in a professional way.

Plausible Deniability

Plausible deniability is utilized in the realm of science through use of anti-forensics:

First, a number of theories are labelled "plausible" by the government agency, thus, creating what amounts to a false choice. Only that number of possible theories are examined. Other theories are simply disgarded as not feasible, and are no longer pursued.

Second, large sums of money are spent to promote the remaining theories, with the final decision arriving after study and outside input.

Third, generalizations are used whenever possible in order to retain the plausibility of the chosen explanation.

Fourth, release the final explanation/report using voluminous scientific data to promote the theoretical idea .

Fifth, Always bring public safety into the matter and promote future recommendations, rather than dwell on past faults.

Sixth, As the agency itself is adequately compartmentalized, plausible deniability is needed only at the highest investigative level of the given agency.

Seventh, after final release of a report, provide further funding to the agency and specifically, to compartmentalized offices within the agency. Psychological validation of the science based explanation will aid in the continued adequate functioning of the agency.

highlight

My favorite is is how the fires got smothered under the rubble and therefore got hotter -- much hotter. Read the report, take notes and give 'em hell.

They say fires got hotter in the rubble?!

The rubble was sprayed with lots of water, and the "collapse" should have put out most of the fires. How could they get hotter in the rubble?

To Vomit Deceit

Sham
1. To trick; to cheat; to deceive or delude with false pretenses.

Chun·der
–verb (used without object), verb (used with object)
1. to vomit.

So, what conclusions can we come up with with this new report? I have to confess that I have not read the thousands of pages nor do I intend to. After a few assertions from Dr. Sunder like the ones above, I've concluded that it would be a huge exercise in futility to attempt to debunk the government's smoke screen any further because they are working under the principle of "If it doesn't fit (our hypothesis), than you must acquit."

"It's simple, it's straight forward, it's elegent" to quote Syham at the press conference.

(Suffice it to say, the 9/11 Truth community will once again shred up this report like so much falling paper flying from the twin towers.)

http://redpill8.blogspot.com/2008/08/shyam-sunders-sham-nists-final-repo...

I didn't understand...

How they looked at the alternative hypothesis without talking to the individuals promoting those hypothesis.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

He did better than that ...

"In their December conf call, Sunder gave the idiotic explanation that once heated, the steel was still hot for a long time. But of course, that does not change the fact that the steel was COOLING DOWN after the exposure!"

Yeah, he said it was still hot for a long time, but he even said it better than that. He said and I quote "the fires moved on, but the steel doesn't cool down." This from that Dec. conference call.

The no lies radio site

The no lies radio site appears to be down (??). Grrr... I really want to hear the rebroadcast of the interview! Is it available elsewhere?