The National Institute on Standards and Technology, which is not an investigative agency, is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST was given the task of doing a scientific investigation and providing a report on the collapse of the Twin Towers and, when that was finished, on WTC Building 7.
The reports are models of how to lie, omit key facts, begin with a conclusion (a false one) and then seek to back it up, and how to fabricate and falsify data. Prof. David Ray Griffin has written an excellent book
The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Offficial Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False
This video compares the NIST computer model simulation to the actual video of the end of building 7. This is an excellent visual that will make you wonder how NIST ever thought they could get away with publishing their video from their computer model, it is so far removed from reality.
<iframe width=”640″ height=”360″ src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/FuyZJl9YleY?feature=player_embedded” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>
NIST has a website devoted to the World Trade Center:
Of special interest to scholars of 9/11 truth are these downloadable pdf files:
NIST NCSTAR 1A
Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7
NIST NCSTAR 1
“Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers”
and more specifically
NIST NCSTAR 1-6
“Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers”
The whole set of reports and supporting documents on the collapse of the Twin Towers (or was it Building 7?) adds up to about 10,000 pages. Very strange for an event that took 10 seconds (each of the Twin Towers) and about 6.5 seconds (Building 7).
The only reasonable explanation is that the authors, including Shyam Sunder and John L. Gross, were trying to prevent people from reading these reports in the first place. Who in his or her right mind is going to commit to reading 10,000 pages? Nobody. This is pure obfuscation, muddying the waters. By introducing all this obfuscation and confusion into the discussion, especially where it was totally unnecessary and where the situation actually called for clarity and erring on the side of caution, NIST effectively precluded an intelligent, nationwide debate on the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Which is what America needed and still needs today.
Although many volumes have been written and spoken about the NIST reports and their false statements, fabrications, and omissions, probably the best video analysis was provided by physicist David Chandler. He produced a series of 3 videos to show what he had shown to NIST at a public meeting, and NIST’s reaction both the good and the bad.
These videos by high school physics teacher David Chandler are very clear, understandable to the layman, and beautifully done.
NIST admits freefall of wtc 7
Many people who know about Building 7 think that it collapsed because of fuel oil fires. Even NIST has said that this is not so.
Is it true that according to NIST, the fuel oil in WTC 7 played no role in the building’s collapse?
(The correct answer is yes. See page xxxvi in NIST NCSTAR 1A, the report on the collapse of WTC 7. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
The entire statement is here:
“Within the building were emergency electric power generators, whose fuel supply tanks lay in and under the building.
However, fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7
. The worst case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines (a) could not have been sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of the critical interior column to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness, or (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed.”
One key myth about the collapse of the Twin Towers which persists to this day is that the collapses of those Towers were “pancake” collapses. The idea is that the floors remained intact but were mysteriously separated from all the steel columns holding them up and were able to fall, as whole pieces, straight down. The result was that the falling “pancakes” smashed the floors or pancakes below and thus the whole thing came down.
First of all this is absolutely not what we see in the videos or still photographs of the collapses of the Twin Towers. We do not see any pancakes left over at the end or during the fall. This theory also does not account for or explain why the steel columns that went from 7 stories underground (the 7 basement levels) to about 1,300′ in the air got broken into sections and blown apart. What we see is the building coming down and outward, and the floors as well as walls were not intact, but rather were reduced to dust and small pieces of concrete.
Possibly for these reasons, NIST actually reversed itself on the “pancake” collapse theory in its responses to Frequently Asked Questions on August 30, 2006. You can find them here:
Here is the key section from NIST’s answer, which is kind of long:
“NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below).”
It is also worth pointing out that almost everything that is not totally obvious (such as, a plane crashed into the building) in NIST’s so called “probable collapse sequence” for each of the Twin Towers is totally made up. NIST does not know these things to be true, nor do they have any way of knowing these things to be true. NIST makes many allegations about what was occurring inside the Towers during the early moments of the collapse, actually the period that preceded the collapse. Obviously nobody who was inside would have been taking pictures, and nobody who was inside survived. Furthermore, NIST did not provide any such pictures. Their fabrications are all based on their computer model, which remains a big secret because NIST refuses to disclose their model inputs. With the right inputs you can program a computer model to tell you that 2 + 2 = 5 or any number.
For these “probable collapse sequences” the Executive Summary of its 470 page document NCSTAR 1-6 plus over 1,200 pages of attachments, what it called the “Probable Collapse Sequence of WTC 1 and WTC 2″ (pp. lxv – lxvi). This contains 18 misleading, deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations.
Comments from Davis 9/11 Truth:
NIST is lying. This was supposed to be the “scientific” investigation yet it turned out to be a massive fraud, unscientific, and 10,000 pages mostly full of obfuscation. The main admission from the point of view of knowing what really happened is NIST’s admission that there was a period of 2.25 seconds of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7. David Chandler, a high school physics teacher, pried this admission out of NIST and has made these excellent videos explaining the significance of that admission. That admission should have made the evening news in every city in America. Ask yourself why it did not.