Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Produced and narrated by David Chandler
Part 3
Shyam Sunder is the lead-investigator
for the NIST-analysis of the collapse of WTC Building 7.
In a technical briefing on August 26th Dr. Sunder clearly explained
why free fall for WTC 7 was impossible.
The analysis shows there’s a difference in time between a free fall time,
a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.
And that is not at all unusual
because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case,
and you had to have a sequence of structural failures that had to take place
and where everything was not instantaneous.
That was before they were forced to acknowledge that free fall actually occurred.
Once they acknowledged free fall they claimed without elaboration
that their new analysis was “consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis”.
I’m not making this up. This is their own words.
Free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.
Sunder’s original remarks make sense under the assumption of a natural collapse.
Anything at an elevated height has gravitational potential energy.
If it falls and none of the energy is used for other things along the way,
all of that energy of converted into kinetic energy,
the energy of motion. And we call it free fall.
If any of the energy is used for other purposes
there’ll be less kinetic energy so the fall will be slower.
In the case of a falling building the only way it can go into free fall
is if an external force removes the supporting structure.
None of the gravitational potential energy of the building
is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building.
The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition.
But the evidence is even stronger than that.
My original analysis looks like this.
I have since confirmed my measurements using a different software package.
Both of these graphs plot velocity versus time.
A straight line indicates constant acceleration.
And the slope of the line indicates the rate of acceleration.
What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall.
Acceleration does not build up gradually. The graph simply turns a corner.
The building went from full support to zero support instantly.
NIST’s graph is upside down relative to mine but that’s really not an issue.
Their data is almost the same.
What is dramatically different is the curve they superimpose on the data.
This curve has no physical significance whatsoever.
It is merely a hypothetical interpretation of the data.
It is literally the mathematical equivalent of laying a web noodle on the graph
and nudging it around until it fits the data.
The straight part fits the data reasonably well.
What is totally misleading are the gradual transitions into and out of free fall.
The raw data speaks for itself. One moment the building is holding.
The next moment it lets go and is in complete free fall.
The onset of free fall was not only sudden.
It extended across the whole width of the building.
My measurement of the acceleration of the building was based on the North-West corner.
NIST’s recent measurement confirming free fall
was based on a point midway along the roof line.
The fact that the roof stayed level
shows that the building was in free fall across the entire width.
The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure,
or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.
All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns
had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors, low in the building,
simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second.
And in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.
Let’s come back to NIST’s acceptance of free fall.
Here is their exact wording. Quote:
“The three stages of collapse progression described above
are consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis
discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9.” Unquote.
In other words: They’re giving the appearance of claiming that free fall is okay.
But actually it’s the 5.4 second duration
of their 3 stage analysis that matches their model.
But we saw in part 2 of this video series
that the 5.4 seconds depends on an artificially early start time
which has no valid observational basis.
Without the 5.4 seconds fig leaf they’re left with free fall and nothing more.
NIST does not show how free fall was consistent with their hypothesis.
Because, as Shyam Sunder has correctly and eloquently explained,
free fall for a naturally collapsing building is impossible.
This brings us to their computer model.
NIST’s so-called “investigation” actually consists of finding a way
to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model.
The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce
the observed collapse pattern that must be how it happened.
The problem is that if something unexpected was going on,
like explosives for instance, you are not going to discover it in a computer model.
For that you need to look at the actual evidence.
So why not examine the steel directly?
Oh yes, there isn’t any! At least there isn’t any
after it was hauled away to Asia and melted down.
NIST’s investigation has been compared to conducting an autopsy without the corps.
As of 2005 NIST reported having only 236 pieces of steel from the WTC complex.
None of them unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7.
We’ve all watched CSI.
Anyone serious about solving a crime
knows the importance of physical evidence.
Yet here the crime scene was scrubbed, the evidence was destroyed,
and the investigation was delayed for years.
Destroying a crime scene is itself a criminal act.
Destroying the steel has absolutely no justification
except to cover-up the cause of the collapse.
So even if we knew nothing else about the events of that day,
we can see immediately that there was a cover-up.
Knowing that there was a cover-up is a strong indication
that there was a crime somebody wanted covered up.
Any investigation that does not acknowledge this basic fact
is not really an investigation. It’s an extension of the cover-up.
NIST claims that their computer model can account for the observed phenomena.
So let’s look at NIST’s model. Except, we can’t!
The software they used to do the modeling is available.
But their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions,
together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted.
If that information were released their results could be checked by anyone
with the appropriate skills and software tools.
But NIST has not released the numbers.
All we’ve been shown are some of the selected animated outputs
they were able to get their model to produce.
Is their model realistic? We don’t know.
Some models a chaotic in the mathematical sense.
In other words: tiny variations on the inputs might result in wildly different outcomes.
Is NIST’s model stable or chaotic, realistic or contrived, honest or fraudulent?
We don’t know. We can’t know without independent testing.
The very process of running the model
until it produces the kind of result you’re looking for is called “selection bias”.
If you think about it, NIST’s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias.
Even if you could show what might have happened
it does not show what actually did happen.
The very fact that NIST has not released their model
strongly suggests that they don’t want their results checked.
In other words: Their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.
If NIST has not released their modeling data and their assumptions,
they’ve really not released their report.
And the fact that this is their final report indicates that they not intend to do so.
Therefore on the face of it their report is little more
than a fancy, expensive cover-up.
One fact we do know about NIST’s model
is that it does not allow for free fall.
The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building
to crumble down through 18 floors.
Crumbling absorbs energy and that makes free fall impossible.
There’s nothing in the models we’ve been shown
that even resembles a three stage collapse for the free fall component.
After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself:
free fall happens only when there are no structural components
below the falling section of the building.
Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures
and these don’t happen instantaneously.
So in the end we come back to where we were in the beginning.
On first impression we were looking at a classic controlled demolition.
NIST claimed to have found a way that it could have happened naturally.
But in fact they failed.
The only way they can support their claim is through lies,
secrecy and pompous but false pronouncements.
That constitutes a failed agenda.
Explosive demolition is the only scenario that has been put forward
that could actually account for the observations.
Where does that leave us?
We have a building that underwent directly observable and now officially acknowledged free fall.
With no plausible mechanisms other than explosive demolition
We have an official investigation by a government agency
that has fraudulently manipulated data.
That has refused to even consider existing physical evidence that explosives were used.
They’ve wrapped themselves and their data in secrecy.
And offered up pronouncements as conclusions to be taken on faith.
The NIST investigation is a fraud and a farce.
We need a new, fully empowered, truly independent and open investigation.