9/11 Free Fall 8/1/13: Gerry B. and "MaladmiNISTration"

Gerry B. is a 9/11 activist and researcher from Scotland who, with the help of others, has made a series of short videos that take apart NIST's investigation of World Trade Center Building 7′s destruction. In this episode of 9/11 Free Fall he discusses his research. Plus news of more 9/11 Truth graffiti in Connecticut and a senior editor from Popular Mechanics gets 9/11 controlled demolition calls on Washington Journal.

Gerry's Videos:

Part One-- Shear Ignorance

Part Two-- The Expanding Lie

Part Three-- Tangled Webs

Part Four-- MaladmiNISTration

Also referenced:

I watched Part 4 -- well done!

Part 4 reviews the earlier videos and does a good job explaining technical points, especially how NIST corrected significant "typos" as this investigative group produced their questions.

So NIST makes changes from 5.5" to 6.25" and from 11" to 12" and so on; but still seems to not have it all right because now (with the "typo" corrections) the temperature claimed by NIST (600C, presumably reached on the critical girder due to burning office materials) is not right to do the "needed" motion of the critical girder. Also, the stiffeners were neglected by NIST - as pointed out in this insightful video.

Well done!

Reminds me of how NIST initially claimed that WTC 7 came down with "constant velocity", a gaffe caught by David Chandler and myself independently and pointed out to NIST. NIST came back, admitting that when one analyzes the actual data, there is acceleration of 32.2 ft/sec*sec. Amazing - that is free fall for over 100 feet, and they admitted it!

Keep pushing the science and see if NIST will finally yield to correct scientific analysis and the obvious regarding the total destruction of WTC 7 on 9/11/2001, the skyscraper which was NOT hit by a plane! The weak explanation offered so far by NIST is one big Achilles heal to the official 9/11 narrative...

What happens after the first 100 feet?

Dr. Jones,

What phenomenon transpired after the free fall for over 100 feet according to NIST?

Thank you.

Thank you for your encouragement and I agree that we need to keep pushing the scientific and technical evidence. The additional detail on the column 79 connection needs to be admitted by NIST (stiffener plates etc). The problem that I think we have now, is that although NIST make some admissions, they refuse to acknowledge the implications of their admissions.
Also, I remember watching NIST being pulled up by yourself and David Chandler for getting velocity confused with acceleration. Their ability to continually shoot themselves in the foot is astounding. Perhaps Gross and Sunder attended the Dick Cheney school of marksmanship.
In all seriousness though, in my opinion, the technical argument re WTC7 is over, and the problem we now face is to ensure that NIST acknowledge these implications, and that these errors, and their significance are made clear to the wider public. This, we intend to continue to strive toward and your encouragement is greatly appreciated. We are continuing to work on further videos, and our pursuit of NIST will continue.

Constant Velocity and Constant Acceleration.

First of all NIST stated that Constant Velocity was consistent with their model of the collapse, and when admitting free-fall i.e a constant acceleration, NIST said that it too was consistent with their model. What sort of model is consistent with two mutually exclusive phenomena?

CONSTANT VELOCITY means ZERO ACCELERATION yet some how NIST's model is consistent with both Zero acceleration and Constant Acceleration at g.