WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III) is now posted on YouTube. This concluding segment explores the implications of NIST's concession (to easily observed reality) that freefall occurred.

Excellent work, once again


Fantastic work. You have great talent for this kind of video. The tone, content, and pacing are 100% first-rate.

This video deserves the widest audience possible. It will communicate very well with a broad range of people.

Thanks for doing it.


JFK on secrecy and the press

Give 'em the old one-two punch.

"This video deserves the widest audience possible. It will communicate very well with a broad range of people."

Agreed, and might I suggest, for a real one-two punch, also show David Chandler's "North Tower Exploding" video. Here it is:

Direct link to Youtube:

Depending on your audience and their receptiveness, you might want to leave some time between the two videos to let the evidence sink in and percolate a bit in their minds, rather than overload them with too much info all at once.

the old one two THREE punch

The video (link below) - posted by John_Parulis on this site under the title: "Unusual Video View of Twin Towers and Building 7 on 9/11"
is extremely compelling.

All it takes is ONE SECOND to make the case. That second is from 6:19 - 6:20 on the video.


While I find the apparent squib line at 6:19 to be intriguing, it's ABSENCE on the north face should be noted.
It's important to be as accurate as we can lest we open ourselves to unnecessary criticism. The truth will out.

Wish I knew how to post images on this site

I agree that accuracy is extremely important.
Do you have two browsers? If so, open the video in each browser. Pause one at 6:19 and
pause the other at 6:20. Put the two windows side by side. There is a definite, obvious and undeniable signifcant change in that one second interval.

Darn. I wish I knew how to post images on this site.

Another thing you can do is pause the video and take a screen shot at 6:19 and paste it into Photoshop or any other program that will let you. Then advance the video to 6:20 and take another
screen shot and paste it next the first.

I have made a dandy little 2 second 2 layer overlay that lets you click back and forth between 6:19 and 6:20 and really see what is happening. Unfortunately I don't know how to post it or how to make it work for people who don't have photoshop with a layers palette.

I wish Parulis or Chandler or someone who is good at this stuff had an email address I could send my file to. OR---Just as good would be if they (or anyone who knows how to do it) would simply make a "loop" showing the one second change from 6:19 to 6:20. It is instantaneous and incredibly dramatic. It is hard to see in the video itself because it goes by so fast.

There is no doubt that there is the sudden appearance of many large "cauliflowers" at 6:20 on one face. These "cauliflowers" don't look all that big at first glance - but when you realize how huge the building was, you realize that these "cauliflowers" are really BIG and there are a whole lot of them.

north face explained


Many witnesses have described explosions as being "like a belt going around the towers."
At 6:21 the camera shifts because the south tower was hit at that moment. So it is impossible to tell by that video whether or not the explosions were in the process of "going around the tower like a belt." BUT --- the squib line is much more than "apparent." The squibs are absolutely confirmable ---- IF the video is genuine and has not been manipulated.

Your pointing out the importance of accuracy is commendable. Go back and watch the original video from 6:19 to 6:20. Play this one second a few times -- over and over. It takes a bit for your eyes to adjust to seeing one single second. But they will adjust. There are many frames in that one second. You will see that the squibs are DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY AND IRREFUTABLY AND UNQUESTIONABLY THERE. And there are soooo many of them.

YOU CAN SEE A LINE OF SQUIBS ACROSS THE ENTIRE EAST FACE EXPLODING AND YOU CAN SEE FIREY FLASHES TOO ESPECIALLY IN THE MIDDLE ----- BUT you have to have the patience to play that one second over and over until your eyes become accustomed to looking at a single second.

Well said

Thanks for the great work David.

"We are never deceived. We deceive ourselves." Goethe

Well done!

Thanks, David, for clearly and concisely exposing the NIST sham about WTC 7.

Controlled demolition is obvious at first glance, because that is indeed what happened.

2+2=5 ???

From Wikipedia:

Orwell's protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare "two plus two makes five" as a fact; he ponders that, if everybody believes in it, does that make it true? Smith writes, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." Later in the novel, Smith attempts to use doublethink to teach himself that the statement "2 + 2 = 5" is true, or at least as true as any other answer one could come up with.

Later in the novel, Winston Smith is electroshocked into declaring that he saw five fingers when in fact he only saw four ("Four! Five! Six! I don't know!").

Competent analysis again

I think there is another thing we know about NIST's model, or at least their animation: it does not correspond at all with the way in which WTC 7 can be seen descending on the videos. Their animation shows an immediately crumbling building: in the videos the building's walls remain perpendicular during most of the collapse.

Awesome !

................ and very well spoken!

Bravo David! This is a grand

Bravo David! This is a grand slam. I would recommend a public "burning" of the NIST report, with the text and charts from this video read aloud. We Are Change......what do ya think?


would be a 911 Truther.

So would Einstein, Newton, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Aristotle.......... Socrates.........

NI$T "$cienti$t$"... can you look in the mirror?
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

What's the next step?

............We can't let the magic column theory go the way of the magic bullet theory. This screams BS!
What are our options?

Some say


May I humbly suggest.


We have our work cut out for us.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Foreign Engineering Universities

I created a new post for this, with NIST's flawed annimations.

The NIST Final WTC 7 Investigation Report, needs to be challenged by international universities specializing in building engineering. David Chandler, of, has supplied a compelling physics analysis of the freefall of building 7, an area that NIST fails to address thoroughly or honestly. Chandler’s study can be used as a springboard for an international analysis. As NIST’s objectivity is compromised by its being a functionary of the US government, US universities, likewise, are deeply indebted to numerous government and industrial financial ties, thereby compromising their objectivity. A listing of a few highly rated international engineering universities is given below. The information comes from This is a sampling based on a perceived notion of independence from US institutions and corporations. This filter is important for reasons already stated. This article is meant to suggest guidelines, rather than being the product of a thorough search for compromising financial entanglements. Any institution involved in this study would be required to reveal its relevant financial ties to the US or global US corporations.

The WTC 7 debate is the cornerstone of the engineering mystery that surrounds the collapse of the WTC buildings on September 11, 2001. Unravel it and the entire toxic cloud of government deceit evaporates.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, has provided the challenge. The quest for the truth of how the buildings collapsed is the single most important issue facing any institution that claims expertise in the art and science of building construction and engineering. There can be no denial that the fate of the world spins around this fact.

Inria, Valbonne ,
Centre National De La Rech Sc.
Universite Paris,
Ecole Normale Superieure,

University of Cambridge
University of Oxford
London, Imperial
London, UCL

University Of Karlsruhe
Universitat Des Saarlandes
Universitat Dortmund
Technische Universat Berlin

Kyoto University, Japan
University OF Tokyo, Japan
Hiroshima University, Japan
Osaka University, Japan

Good info...

I wonder if Shyam Sunder and/or John Gross are still publicly commenting on the WTC7 investigation? It would be interesting to hear what they have to say now.

Comments on another video blog

from user "peterene"

Please check out these videos from YouTube user "achimspok" and leave some feedback, here and at YouTube.

Great stuff Mr Chandler

... nowhere have I seen an argument as airtight as this for WTC7's free fall..... I mean what more do you have to do to prove it....

Great stuff Mr Chandler .... all them years of teaching cheeky buggers is paying off.................... only joking,

This video nails it

Thanks for producing the three videos. They are very easy to understand. I especially like the fact that you use the words of Shyam Sunder to undermine his own arguments. My compliments for it!

One minor point that may need clarification:
at around 3:00 you address the NIST sigmoid graph and state that NIST artificially fits the curve to the data points ("like a wet noodle"). Your presentation directly thereafter of your own curve suggests that it is the use of RAW data that explains the different results. It appears a little vague what you mean by raw data. I would prefer to hear that
-(1) your curve is based on MORE data points than NIST's curve, which has only a few data points in their so-called stage 1;
-(2) your reference point of measurement is more clearly defined (i.e. the building's horizontal roof line). You pointed this out in your previous video, but it would have been helpful to restate it in Video III, since not everyone may have seen your previous videos.

Seeing the high quality of your videos and their to-the-point nature, I think you are very well-qualified to produce a video addressing another interesting issue, i.e., those explosive squibs at the WTC 1 & 2 towers, which can also be seen in your video on the North tower. In the journal of 9/11 Studies there is an excellent paper on this by Kevin Ryan, entitled "High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers" in the Vol 13 issue (July 2007)
( ).
The reason I like this paper so much is that
-(a) it focuses on a clearly observable phenomenon during the collapse, which due to the squibs' locations well below the collapsing wave front raises the curiosity of viewers,
-(b) the common explanation by 911 debunkers that the squibs are due to air pressure is easily refuted through physical arguments (the gas law, open office spaces; see the paper). These physical arguments are easily understood by the layman viewer. For example, the working of the gas law could be illustrated by a bike pump, about which most people have some intuitive feeling regarding the pressures involved. Unfortunately, there has not been enough attention on these squibs. The final version of Loose-Change even lacks any coverage of them, while it was one of the most compelling parts of the previous versions.

The freefall of the WTC 7 and the explosive squibs in the WTC 1&2 towers have been the two single most issues that took away any remaining doubts I had about the way these buildings came down.

Keep up the good work!


Very poignant criticism. Thanks.

And again, thanks to Mr. Chandler for his excellent presentations.

Is this a continuous sentence by Dr. Sunder?

In the beginning , Dr. Sunder says: "the analysis shows there's a difference in time between a free fall time - a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it and that is not at all unusual because there was a structural resistance that was provided in this particular case and you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and where everything was not instantaneous."

At 38 seconds, there is a camera shift. It occurs between the phrase: "no structural components below it" and the phrase "and that is not unusual..." Are these two phrases spoken in one sentence by Dr. Sunder --- or does the camera shift correspond to a splicing of two phrases that had something else between them?

Is there a text verification of the sentence quoted above?


I think this might be the full quote....

Shyam Sunder: " of all is the loading function that applies to the every body...every...uh...on...all bodies this particular...on this planet not ground analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."

Thank you tanabear EOM

Thank You tanabear.

The Three Video Combined and uploaded to a variety of

video hosting sites.

These three video could be combined into one and then uploaded to many video hosting sites.

North Texans for 911 Truth
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site

BBC blog

On the BBC board we have someone called 'Johnny Pixels' who is basically an OCT defender but he has written a good point. Now I know the purpose of these videos is to point out the fraudulent nature of the NIST report but it does imply CD (even though you don't mention it as far as I can recall)

His point is why you don't do a similar analysis on a case of CD because it is blind to claim that freefall = CD. I know that may sound stupid but I think he does have a point (IMO)

correct me if i'm wrong but...

no one needs to supplant the failed NIST hypothesis with a working hypothesis in order to challenge NIST's report.
all that's required is to demonstrate that the OCT is false.

Excellent and invaluable video series.

David, Excellent and invaluable video series. Thank you.

I see you are not accepting e-mail so I will put it here and I hope you read it. I put together a very short, simple proof that anyone should be able to understand. The proof came directly from your videos, "NIST Finally Admits Free Fall." It occurred to me that a short, simply stated and easily/quickly understood proof might be valuable if disseminated. I posted it here at 911blogger yesterday ( ).

David, let me know if you have any thoughts on the NIST proof (Thanks):

9/11: NIST Provides the Proof 9-11 was an Inside Job / False Flag Attack.

The following simple proof regarding World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) comes from David Chandler’s excellent and invaluable video series, “NIST Admits Free Fall.”

NIST’s proof that 9/11 was an inside job / false flag attack goes like this:

I. Given that a crumpling or naturally collapsing building absorbs energy making free fall impossible (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth);

II. And Given that NIST agrees: Free fall is impossible in a building crumpling or collapsing naturally due to structural resistance (Shyam Sunder, NIST);

III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural resistance for a building to free fall.

IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall;

V. And Given that the only way free fall can occur is to remove all structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a controlled demolition;

VI. Therefore, the free falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

(The following follows logically from the above):

Given that it takes at least weeks to plan and prepare a building like WTC7 for a controlled demolition; and given that there is no reason to believe anyone other than “insiders” could have carried out the advanced preparation and actual execution of the controlled demolition of the secure WTC7 (“CIA Building”); therefore the controlled demolition of WTC7 was carried out by “insiders.”

Given that WTC7 was brought down on 9/11; and given that there could be no reason to demolish WTC7 other than to be included with the other events on 9/11; therefore “insiders” also planned and executed the other events on 9/11, i.e., 9/11 was an inside job.

Thank you NIST for providing the proof that 9/11 was an inside job / false flag attack. -- “NIST Admits Free Fall” (9/11) NIST: a. Free Fall Requires No Resistance b. WTC7 was in Free Fall