EXCELLENT work. So NIST lied. Yet again.

However, consider: NIST is a government agency, a part of the US Department of Commerce. The multi-trillion dollar question that we are obliged to ask is:

"Is it likely (or even possible) that a US government agency (NIST) is capable of releasing an honest, unbiased, scientifically rigorous report IF the contents of that report are politically incendiary (punintentional), and which implicate persons and/or other agencies within that same government of committing serious crimes... such as playing a part in, or being accessory to the murder of almost 3000 people?

Another version of that same question goes as follows:

"Is it likely (or even possible) that a US government agency (NIST) is capable of releasing an honest, unbiased, scientifically rigorous report IF the contents of that report are politically incendiary (punintentional) enough to demonstrate that the parties who were universally blamed by the government, with their lapdog media in tow, were only partly responsible, or perhaps even *not responsible*, for the attacks of 9/11?"

No and no.

It must have been anticipated (by the Bush Administration and other elements within government) that an investigation would be opened, as to why a massive 47 story building suddenly imploded, in full view, without historical precedent. What are the best ways of compromising a trial or an investigation in order to divert or detach blame? (The same goes for the Twin Towers, of course).

*First, restrict media coverage. The demise of WTC7 became quickly an item of "curiosity", an "anomalous aside", deemed not very newsworthy or significant by the corporate media. Furthermore, it was not easy to link this aspect of the attacks directly with Arabs and Muslims - the neoconservative mandate. As a result, a large proportion of the public either forgot about it, or even had no clue that a 3rd large building was destroyed that day. Then:
*Restrict access to evidence,
*Clamp down on photography and videography,
*Remove evidence - ASAP and under armed guard,
*Bury the evidence, under heavy security,
*Destroy the evidence,
*Misrepresent the evidence,
*Ignore the evidence that weakens a case
*Manufacture false evidence, and
*Exaggerate this "evidence" in favor of a preordained conclusion.

All of the above happened, not only as regards actions by officials and agencies at Ground Zero, but also subsequent "investigations" undertaken by parties within that same government. This neatly contrived "lack of data" allowed NIST to come up with a conclusion that was politically acceptable, and took advantage of the broad ignorance, as regards the scientific method, that exists within the public at large - which cannot seem to tell the difference between proof and speculation. NIST's conclusion is no better than conveniently speculative.

Actually, NIST's conclusion is an unscientific sham, the quintessential example of "dry-labbing". They claim, without an iota of proof, that a local failure was the cause of the collapse of the entire WTC7 - in perfect symmetry at near free-fall acceleration. However, as illustrated in the video above, NIST cooked the books. Common sense tells us that the motivation was to conform with a pre-ordained POLITICAL - not scientific - mandate. This WTC7 explanation was acceptable to the public because it did not dilute the government's 9/11 story with anything awkward, facts that would have, as Cheney famously quoted, "taken away from America's war against terrorism".

Can we blame NIST entirely? Probably not *entirely*... they were not responsible for the criminal activities (tampering with the crime scene etc. etc. etc.) that resulted in (NIST's) having to rely on the virtual world, in the lack of hard evidence. Did Sunder and Gross etc have the freedom to pursue an open inquiry with what little they had to work with? I do not know... but I would bet the farm that they were coached, and guided within very strict boundaries...in the same way that so-called 9/11 Commission was hijacked by Philip Zelikow, NORAD, the DoD, the White House and others? Both NIST and the 9/11 Commissioners probably had little choice in the matter... or else! Both the 9/11 Commission and the investigations conducted by NIST were cases of the "Gambino family investigating the Mafia" or the "fox looking after the henhouse".

The fact remains that we tend to believe (a) what we want to believe, and (b) what has been repeated often enough, regardless of accuracy or veracity. Violating the laws of classical physics? No problem - mention "conservation of momentum" or Newton's laws of motion, or the law of entropy to Joe Public, and the chances are you'll get a glassy-eyed stare. And - people implicitly believe in all kinds of equally wild and wacky stuff - big-business religion is built on such!

Is the US a mature enough society to be able to deal with painful issues like 9/11 in a rational way, with informed discussion? In certain limited circles, absolutely so. In mainstream or mass culture, absolutely not. The subject has been rendered a strict taboo in our corporate media - unless parroting the official version.

*

Because the glove clearly never fitted, we threw it away and buried it.

Thanks for making these videos. They get right to the point.

Keep in mind that they are not just asking us to believe that a steel skyscraper can come down in free-fall, they are asking us to believe that a "building within a building" came down in free-fall.

WTC 7 went through $200 million extensive renovation in 1989. it was referred to as a "building within a building" such that entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity. I wonder if NIST took these renovation modifications into account.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/19/realestate/commercial-property-salomon-solution-building-within-building-cost-200-million.html

Keep up the great work guys.

http://www.infowars.com/tangled-webs-nist-and-wtc7/

Nice work gerrycan1!!