NIST Video: The Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Building Fell

I managed to capture NIST's video and upload it to YouTube. The video can be found on NIST's website here:

The source file (.FLV) can be downloaded here:

7 years of investigation culminates in this moronic propaganda?

If heat from office fires "caused long support beams to fail", where are said beams or samples from them for testing, analysis, & study???

Computers can be programmed to simulate anything & produce any desired outcome, and that is surely the case here!!!

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here:

Kevin Ryan on the Alex Jones show yesterday

August 26, 2008

Jason Bermas discusses the latest greatest NIST explanation for the free fall speed collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 with Kevin Ryan.

18:00 3MB

Additional Kevin Ryan Media:



Great interview.

Kevin Ryan and Jason Bermas pitch it around well together.

ANYONE can sign the petition @

Be sure to sign the petition @ -- ANYONE can sign the petition. -- Every 9/11Truther needs to sign the petition at "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth". ***Spread the word to others to sign the petition.***

Squibs deliberately "overexposed" in NIST rendition.

{Of course, we all know that NIST intentionally is trying to bury the truth.} SQUIBS-- I am sure that others have also noticed this: The squibs are not well-shown in the NIST video. Compare with this (about the 2:20 mark)

IMO these are no

IMO these are no 'squibs'.The black blobs follow the building down without any trailing. If these were puffs of dust shooting out because of explosions, the dust would remain more or less stationary in the air leaving a trail that followed the building down.

Also WTC7 was damaged in the exact same spot as were the blobs are visible.

Image Hosted by

I remember someone made an analysis that was posted on 911blogger but i can't find it anymore...
Please watch my movie: The Third Tower

I agree

Here's my own analysis:

That's it! Thanks for

That's it! Thanks for posting that.

Just browsing through the new NIST report this graphic caught my eye. It's the computer simulation of the exterior buckling. It doesn't resemble what was observed in the video's in the slightest. Their modeling of the core collapse can not be verified in any way, since we can not look inside the building. The exterior however is another story. Multiple video recordings of it exist, none of which shows anything like NIST produced in their report.

Image Hosted by

NIST disagrees however (p. 595)

Image Hosted by

Please watch my movie: The Third Tower

The walls remained quite straight...

... at least during the first half of the destruction, as proven by several videos.

The building was destroyed floor by floor, and it retained its shape almost until the end.

Now, I'd like to know: why does NIST present such an *obvious* distortion?


.....think you can put the video of WTC#7 nexted to this image?

i'm working on something,

i'm working on something, should be done tomorrow.
Please watch my movie: The Third Tower

Regardless of "squib" interpretation - NIST censored them.

Actually, I don't care one way or the other whether they are squibs or puffs. -- - My point is that in a Public Release video, NIST deliberately "overexposed" that far right area. NIST is trying to hide that phenomena. That is the point of my statement. - -- {Regardless of whether those are puffs or squibs or doesn't matter to me much... we all know that Building 7 was a controlled demolition. }

You can fiddle with the

You can fiddle with the color levels to see them a little better, but you're right the image is way too bright.

Or then...

... NIST did it to lead truthers astray.

They are almost certainly not puffs or squibs, so let's use the strong evidence we have. Such as the fact that the fires lasted a maximum of about 20 minutes at any given location. The Popular Mechanics, for one, likes to talk about fires raging for seven hours (not that the time between the collapse of the North Tower and WTC 7 is even that long), etc. That is one of the misrepresentations that needs correcting.

absurd video

If one part of the building fell first, then it wouldn't have collapsed straight down. Duh.

What a crock of shit.

Who are they kidding?

These conclusions (collapse by computer simulation - quite an accomplishment, I'd say) will be similar to the Supreme Court decision in Gore v. Bush - a one-time-only deal, never to be used to compare other building collapses again.


Merlin's analytical modeling

' P R E S T O D I G I T A L I Z A T I O N ' ... a new diagnostic tool to obtain the results intended, because truth is scarier than fiction.

Hey all, if you go back and

Hey all, if you go back and watch the NIST webcast at 15 minutes in, it leaves you a CBS News WTC7 collapse video in your temp files, I snatched the source .flv file and you can download it here if you like: At least NIST gave us a somewhat decent view of the east penthouse collapse, personally, I've had a difficult time trying to find the CBS video in it's entirety. The next question I have is about the sound, where is it? Best wishes all, Nate

P.S. See this WCBS clip from the morning of 9/12 also for other rare bits of WTC7 footage, including the entire collapse with the east penthouse, and the audio?

"Fluidity" of the collapse

The collapse looks somehow "fluid" and "organic"... There is initially a kink in the eastern penthouse too before it is completely destroyed. Then the second penthouse sinks in while a kink appears in the main structure, and then it all falls down in a smooth motion. It's almost beautiful.

A friend of mine compared the collapse of WTC 7 as seen from this angle to a Froedingen cake that has been too long out of the fridge. :-)

I also retrieved that clip,

I also retrieved that clip, grab here:

Wait a second

Did i see that right?

The man is talking about all of the windows being blown out (or in?).... he then looks up and points to blding 7 (he doesnt know what building it is) and says fires are raging. but "the pile" is on the other side of wtc 7.
so why were windows blown out of a building on the other side of building 7, when the windows of wtc 7 facing that side were not blown out?

does that question make sense? watch the video starting at :28 in to get a better idea of what im talking about.

as i recall, mark loizeaux said some about windows being blown out... is this suspicious, or am i missing some obvious phenomena here?

"The charter of our 20 million dollar investigation was..."

Dr Shyam Sunder received his doctorial degree from MIT in 1981. He has stated that the molten metal could have easily been formed through the fires that continued under the rubble since, he said, the heat would not dissipate, but would irradiate back.

In the interest of resolving this burning issue, I suggest that his professors at MIT show us experimentally how this is possible in an oxygen starved environment, while pouring “a lake” of water onto it, as were the true conditions.

Sunder explained that his group did NOT look for residues of explosives, since this was a technical, and NOT a criminal investigation. The owner, who has admitted on national television to have “pulled the building, and we watched it fall”, and who managed to insure the three buildings against terrorist destruction in a never seen before history type of contract, that was signed in June or July of 2001, is probably very happy that it was not in the 20 million dollar charter of the NIST investigation to look for any signs of a criminal act. In fact, Larry Silversteins office was one of the first people to congratulate NIST for its excellent work; right after this report came out, 7 years after the building was destroyed.

The NIST report is an OPEN SHAM. Any child will realize that an asymmetric tower, built to resist a nuclear attack on the city, would NOT fall down symmetrically, at free-fall speed, into its own footprint, after a structural progressive failure on one side of it.
“This is a very rare event”, said Sunder. Indeed, it has never happened before, due to fire.

It is one more elaborate fairy-tale courtesy of the Government Ministry of Truth. It is high time that a true CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION of the full spectrum of events of September 11th 2001 be undertaken by the people of the United States, and ALL UNIVERSITIES in the World.

Go to for more info, and please join in the action to get a massive amount of signatures (at AETruth.ORG) to bring back common sense to our country!

"unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory. If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man." (Harold Pinter)

"The NIST report is an OPEN SHAM."

He should be called Dr. SHAM Sunder.

Molten Metal

Where can I see or hear Dr. Shyam opining on molten metal? You mean he actually admits that it exists?!? Oh my gosh. I have to read/see/hear this.

This is the first I have ever heard of anyone from the government side even whisper the term molten metal.

Molten metal existing for weeks in extreme temperatures (even though tens of thousands of gallons of water were continuously applied to it) cannot be explained away with a straight face...... even by an MIT PhD.


"The owner, who has admitted on national television to have “pulled the building, and we watched it fall”, and..."

You're presenting blatant misquotes as genuine. This is the type of shit that destroys the credibility of "truthers" in general.

1. "...THEY decided to pull IT."

"It" has been clarified by Silverstein to refer to the firefighter operation. Silverstein never said "pull the building", and yet half the "truthers"(sic) claim he did.

You can argue that you know better than him about what he meant, but that is never going to fly in court, and it isn't "evidence." It's is a pervasive and credibility-damaging distraction FROM evidence.

The second error was "we watched it fall”, when the actual quote is, "And we watched the building COLLAPSE."

The third error is stringing together different sentences into a new sentence and putting it in quotes as if it was genuine.

The sloppiness of the writing is a major flaw around here and yet it's always encouraged and voted up despite the glaring twisting of facts to suit the claim.

Straight reporting of facts is often ignored. Hyped up twisted quotes are often cheered on.

It was supposed to have something to do with "truth."

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

You've never considered the

You've never considered the "pull it" comment to be evidence of anything. However, how do you reconcile these minor points:

1. There were no firefighters in the building, Any "clarification" Silverstein's office supplied after questions were raised about his statement does not alter this fact, so the strange use of the noun "it" didn't refer to a contingent of firefighters.

2. The witnesses to street-level preparations for the collapse are now a part of the public record.

3. The actual quote indicates a cause and effect relationship between a decision taken and the collapse of the building.

4. Identifying the word "pull" as a demolition term is irrelevant in light of #3. "... maybe the best thing to do is (blank) ... and they made that decison ... mumble mumble ....and then we watched the building collapse." Were the phantom firefighters holding the building up with their shoulders?

Do you think it's just too crazy that Larry actually said what he said, therefore it can't mean what it sounds like? This is no different from Bush's saying -- twice -- that he'd seen the first plane hit on television before he entered the classroom. Who's ever held him to account for that? Their hubris is beyond compare; they can flub and say the most incriminating things, but because they know they'll get away with it, it's nothing to lose sleep over. So what if some people figure it out? If it's not part of the official record, it just didn't happen. History is consistent on this one: lather, rinse, repeat.

I contacted NIST

I contacted NIST via an email in an attempt to get them to explain what caused the piece of steel that FEMA analyzed to melt and as reported on in the Journal of Materials. I also let them know I would be informing my students what their response would be.

Sadly, I doubt I will receive any feedback regarding the "greatest mystery" that the New York Times reported on regarding this piece of steel that was heated to temperatures way beyond what any normal office fire might produce.

"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

The Computer Modeling Is Valid Only To The Degree

That it can be duplicated in reality . With no attempt to verify the computer model, the model is meaninglesss and only confuses the issues at hand.

In other words, the model loses scientific salience if used merely as a description of an event and there is no attempt to demonstate it.

Computer modeling of some

Computer modeling of some complex systems is almost totally useless for prediction, for example consider the problem of determining the structure of proteins. To accurately determine the three-dimensional structure of proteins, as necessary for biomedical research, one basically needs real physical data from X-ray diffraction of crystals. Projects like "Folding @ Home" are largely misleading because the lack of computational power has never been the real problem for people studying protein structure. No, the real issue is that people do not understand how proteins "fold" at a fairly basic level.

However, this sort of question about the limits of modeling only applies to legitimate science. NIST & Dr. Sham clearly are not modeling, they are ANIMATING. It is wholesale fraud, and given the circumstances: TREASON.