Why the NIST WTC 7 Report is False
Kevin Ryan Sat, 07/09/2011 - 4:04pm
Few people seem to know why the official report for World Trade Center building 7 is false and unscientific. Some might have heard that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (or NIST) has admitted that the building fell in free-fall acceleration for a period of time. But the fact is that the building could never have begun to fall the way NIST said it did. Here’s why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU
- Kevin Ryan's blog
- Login to post comments
Explanation
Kevin,
Thank you for this great explanation. You make the scientific argument which they refuse to do.
Just for interest here are google's photos of buildings collapsing, showing real collapses when foundations were obviously poorly constructed, and google added WTC, not 7 though, as part of the group just to confuse the public.
http://www.google.com/search?q=building%20collapse%20photos&sourceid=mozilla2&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
How insidious..?
to add the tower picture in the group and leave out bldg 7. One has to wonder if there was a conscious intent involved here and was the intent to inform or to hide? I think it proves only to highlight the vast differences between the WTC and actual collapses. One needs only play a little game of "which of these things in not like the other..." Leaving out bldg 7 suggests it wasn't a collapsed building at all to me. If we are to believe our leaders, its the greatest architectural failure in history and it should top the list. By including WTC 2 in the results, it stands out markedly from the other actual collapse images and the image links to dc911truth.org. If it was someone actually playing with the new page ranking rules, it may be an insidiously clever closet truth supporter working at google..?? or it's just a freak thing the search came back with.. lol..
Kevin, this presentation is outstanding. I can't thank you enough for all your contributions. I wish you and everyone the greatest success in Toronto.
peace
dtg
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =
“The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.” -- Winston Churchill
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =
NIST Fallacies
The NIST report is unscientific and false due to the Finite Element Analysis.... and the numerous fallacious arguments it gives to explain its work are further evidence of being unscientific and deliberately deceptive.
Another great job Kevin
Thanks for, once again, pointing out NIST's blatant and obvious lies.
I wonder how these guys (esp Sunder, Gross, etc) perform as men being such pathetic worms. Surely their wives must have gotten disappointed in them and moved on.
axial expansion of Sunders nose.
not heating the concrete in the model.
photo and observed fire activity not factored into the model.
Did I read somewhere that thermal Conductivity wasn't factored into the model?
anyway.
data on model parameters not being released because NISTs safety would be jeopardized if people got hold of it.
timely presentation.
Nicely put.
Thanks.
Great work, Kevin. So, as we
Great work, Kevin.
So, as we now all know, NIST deliberately rigged its own "investigation" into WTC 7, publishing a dry-labbed report employing all the deceptive, fraudulent methods common to bad "science".... funded by the US taxpayers.
NIST is a federal agency within the US Department of Commerce. They have been in existence for 110 years and have played a part in the development of all manner of advanced technologies. But in the case of WTC7, they have been caught red-handed, in dishing out lies and deceptions to their paymasters (the taxpayers) and the rest of the world, regarding elementary physics which (not to take away from David Chandler's great work) any educated middle school physics student could have deduced, given the evidence.
So, can one put any credence that the errors and *garbage* contained within the NIST report, and Dr. Sunder's stonewalling and flustered responses when asked questions relating to elementary physics and visual evidence, was all accidental? Dr. Shyam Sunder has an impressive looking c.v. See here: http://www.nist.gov/el/ssunder.cfm ... it would be highly unlikely that *incompetence* was the leading factor here. (!)
The implications/questions are searingly obvious: To whom were NIST answering? Who had such a special relationship with NIST that would result in the deliberate trashing of a federal inquiry? Who were NIST protecting, either by political persuasion, direct orders or as a result of threats?
Why the protracted need by a US federal agency to protect al Qaeda members? Or other radical Muslims? Or Saudi Arabians?.... as some around here would prefer us to believe?
Kevin Ryan
Big fan here. Kevin is at the point and doing the best he can. I can tell you, his work is really appreciated.
Let's not forget the Hall of Infamy of NIST's spokesman, Newman.
When asked whether it had carried out tests for explosives on 911, NIST said it had not. When a reporter asked NIST spokesman Michael Newman why not, he replied: “Because there was no evidence of that.”
When the reporter asked the obvious follow-up question, “How can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?”
Newman replied: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers’ money.”
“Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” NIST, August 30, 2006 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Why are these criminals still walking the streets amongst regular normal people?