Here are just a few of the witnesses and recordings that NIST says DO NOT exist.
You be the judge.

Here’s NIST’s Statement from their website “Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. …”

On Feb. 19, 2010, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth held a press conference at the Mariner’s Club & Hotel in San Francisco, CA, USA, announced the milestone of having achieved in excess of 1,000 signatures from architects and engineers from around the world, demanding a new, truly independent investigation of the facts regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001, saying that the conclusions drawn by the 911 Commission reek of cover-up, are not at all supported by the facts.
The 80-minute press conference included presentations by
Richard Gage, AIA, founder of AE911Truth, who summarized how the facts support demolition being the cause of the World Trade Center buildings 1,2 and 7, not fire;
David Ray Griffin, author of “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7″, talking about the questionable science of NIST, concluding that they lied and are party to the cover-up;
Steven E. Jones, professor Emeritus from BYU, who talked about evidence found in the WTC dust that can only be explained by intentional demolition; and
Eric Lawyer, founder of Firefighters for 911 Truth, who pointed out the many ways in which long-established protocols for handling crime scenes involving fire and building collapse were egregiously violated, consistent with a cover-up.
As a sad commentary on the press corps, not one news agency in the world so far has done any coverage on the Feb. 19 event that was simultaneously broadcast at press conferences being hosted concurrently in cities throughout the US including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Austin, Dallas, Madison, Dover, NH, Tulsa, Tucson, Boston, Alexandria, VA (DC), Tampa, Temple Terrace, FL, Denver, Newark; and internationally in Ontario, Vancouver, Brussels, Denmark, Sydney, and Wellington, NZ.
Read more…

During an investigation, many things must be considered. Aside from the physical evidence, and witness testimony, suspect criminal history also must be analyzed. The investigation must include past history and the Modus Operandi, “M.O.” for short.

N.F.P.A. 921 19.4.8.2.6 – Extremism” addresses terrorism specifically. It reads:
Extremism-motivated firesetting is committed to further a social, political, or religious cause. Fires have been used as a weapon of social protest since revolutions first began. Extremist firesetters may work in groups or as individuals. Also, due to planning aspects and the selection of their targets, extremist firesetters generally have a great degree of organization, as reflected in their use of more elaborate ignition or incendiary devices. Subcategories of extremist firesetting are identified as follows.
(a) Terrorism. The targets set by terrorists may appear to be at random; however, target locations are generally selected with some degree of political or economic significance. Political targets generally include government offices, newspapers, universities, political party headquarters, and military or law enforcement installations. Political terrorists may also target diverse properties such as animal research facilities or abortion clinics. Economic targets may include business offices, distribution facilities of utility providers, banks, or companies thought to have an adverse impact on the environments. Fires or explosions become a means of creation confusion fear, or anarchy. THE TERRORIST MAY INCLUDE FIRE AS BUT ONE OF A VARITETY OF WEAPONS, ALONG WITH EXPLOSIVES, USED IN FURTHERING HIS OR HER GOAL…

It very clearly states the Terrorist may use explosives along with fire to further their goal.

Obviously, explosives were used in 1993 on this very same complex.

It would seem to be a “no-brainer” that a true investigation would test for the possibility that “the terrorist may (have) use(d) explosives along with fire to further their goal.”

There is no excuse for refusing to test for explosives.

Please help us demand a new independent investigation following national standards by signing our petition.

Thank you.

WHY DOES NIST REFUSE TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVES?
To this day NIST refuses to test for the possibility of explosives. “Considering” is NOT testing. Private parties have tested, and found evidence of explosives.

So, how does NIST explain their refusal to test for explosives? Here it is:

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 04/21/2009)
Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.”
NIST has made it very clear that two of the reasons they refuse to test for explosive residue are because 1) no blast sounds were heard, and 2) that they must be necessary for an explosion.

Ironically, the National Fire Protection Association’s guidebook disagrees with their logic on point 2. It is very clearly stated in Chapter 18 - Explosions, 18.1 - General:
“…Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.”

And for their first statement that no blast sounds were recorded or heard by witnesses. We offer the following:

These are just a few of the over 100 witness accounts of explosions.

Now, let’s be clear. Explosion sounds can be explained away. But, only after a thorough investigation. When there is this much witness testimony, evidence, and explosive use by terrorists on this very same complex, there is no excuse for refusing to test for explosive residue.

Help us demand a new investigation by signing our petition.

From Scholars for Truth and Justice

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS-Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is a former university professor and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.

February 2, 2008

Many Americans are content with the 9/11 Commission Report, but the two chairmen of the commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton are not. Neither was commission member Max Cleland, a US Senator who resigned from the 9/11 Commission, telling the Boston Globe (November 13, 2003): “This investigation is now compromised.” Even former FBI director Louis Freeh wrote in the Wall Street Journal (November 17, 2005) that there are inaccuracies in the commission’s report and “questions that need answers.”

Both Kean and Hamilton have twice stated publicly, once in their 2006 book, ‘Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission,’ and again in (January 2, 2008), the New York Times, that there are inaccuracies in their report and unanswered — or mis-answered — questions.

On the second day of this new year, Kean and Hamilton accused the CIA of obstructing their investigation: “What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the President, to investigate one of the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.”

In their book, Kean and Hamilton wrote that they were unable to obtain “access to star witnesses in custody who were the only possible source for inside information about the 9/11 plot.”

The only information the commission was permitted to have about what was learned from interrogations of alleged plot ringleaders, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, came from “thirdhand” sources. The commission was not permitted to question the alleged plotters in custody or even to meet with those who interrogated the alleged plotters. Consequently, write Kean and Hamilton, “We had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information” that was fed to them by third party hands. “How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was telling us the truth?”

The fact that video tapes of the interrogations existed was kept secret from the 9/11 Commission.

The video tapes have since been destroyed. The destruction of the videos has become an issue because of White House involvement in the decision to destroy the tapes and because the videos are believed to have been destroyed because they reveal methods of torture that the Bush administration denies using.

According to President Bush, the US does not practice torture even though he and his Department of Justice (sic) assert the right to torture.

Is the torture issue a red herring? The 9/11 Commission was not tasked with investigating interrogation methods or detainee treatment. The commission was tasked with investigating al Qaeda’s participation in the 9/11 attack and determining the perpetrators of the terrorist event. There was no reason to withhold from the commission video evidence of confessions implicating al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Was the video evidence withheld from the 9/11 Commission because the alleged participants in the plot did not confess, did not implicate al Qaeda, and did not implicate bin Laden? Does anyone seriously believe that evidence of confession would not have been revealed — evidence that could have foreclosed what has become a massive industry of 9/11 truth seekers involving large numbers of highly credible persons?

There is no reason for the Bush administration to fear the torture issue. The Justice Department’s memos have legalized the practice, and Congress has passed legislation, signed by President Bush, giving retroactive protection to US interrogators who tortured detainees. The Military Commissions Act, passed in September 2006 and signed by Bush in October 2006, strips detainees of protections provided by the Geneva Conventions: “No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.” Other provisions of the act strip detainees of speedy trials and of protection against torture and self-incrimination. The law has a provision that retroactively protects torturers against prosecution for war crimes.

Did the Bush administration cleverly take advantage of the torture claims in order to spin the destruction of the CIA video tapes as a “torture story.” It is much more likely that the tapes were destroyed because they reveal the absence of confession to the plot. As Kean and Hamilton ask, without evidence how do we know the truth? All we have is the word of the administration that told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that, while sitting on a NIE report [National Intelligence Estimate on Iran] that concluded that Iran had terminated its weapons program in 2003, told us that Iran had an ongoing nuclear weapons program and was close to having a nuclear weapon.

What about the bin Laden video tape in which he takes credit for the 9/11 attack? Every indication is that the tape is a fake. The bin Laden in the November 9, 2001, “confession video” looks nothing like the bin Laden in the last confirmed video of December, 2001.

Recently, the Italian newspaper, Corriere Della Sera, reported that the former president of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, said that Italian intelligence had concluded that the bin Laden confession video was a fake.

William Arkin in the online Washington Post, February 1, 1999, described a voice-morphing technology developed at the government’s Los Alamos laboratory. Arkin reported that digital morphing, including appearance, “has come of age, available for use in psychological operations.”

Investigative reporter Kristina Borjesson reminds us that “six days after 9/11, CNN reported that bin Laden had sent a statement to Al Jazeera denying that he had been involved.” She also reminds us that the FBI says it has no hard evidence that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. The FBI wants Osama for the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, not for 9/11. Borjesson also reports that in the “confession video” bin Laden is revealed writing with his right hand, but is known to be left-handed.

If the bin Laden “confession video” is indeed a fake, as it appears to be, why run the risk of creating such a video if the CIA has on video tape the confessions of the alleged al Qaeda participants in the 9/11 plot? Why destroy such evidence, especially when torture has been given a green light by the DOJ and US Congress?

——————————————————————————–

NFPA 9.3.6 covers Spoliation of Evidence. Specifically, 9.3.6.7 reads as follows: “Once evidence has been removed from the scene, it should be maintained and not be destroyed or altered until others who have a reasonable interest in the matter have been notified. Any destructive testing or destructive examination of the evidence that may be necessary should occur only after all reasonably known parties have been notified in advance and given the opportunity to participate in or observe the testing.”

It would seem painfully obvious the very engineers and investigators that are tasked to determine the cause of collapse would be “reasonably known parties” and would find it very helpful to “participate in or observe the testing” in order to aid in their investigation.

Since when do we destroy evidence before we identify the cause of collapse? We don’t solve crimes, or get safer buildings by destroying evidence, and then hypothesize the cause. There is nowhere in the NFPA guidelines, or any investigation guidelines that we have found that call for the destruction of evidence, and then the investigation.

We often hear people say it was about the money in the recycled steel. We haven’t been able to find one other example of a mass murder, and engineering catastrophe where the evidence was destroyed prior to determining cause, for the money. Don’t accept that excuse. Willful destruction of evidence before an investigation completion is only done to hinder the investigation or hide the truth!

Glenn Corbett, Professor of Fire Sciences, discusses the destruction of evidence.

________________________________________________________________________________________________
We believe TOWER 7 is the crux of the entire investigation. There was no official report as to how a 47 story concrete and steel high rise, that was not struck by an airplane, collapsed at near free-fall speed into it’s own footprint. That is until this week (8/21/08) - Almost 7 years later after unrelenting public pressure.

On Thursday, NIST released the following: “Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”

“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said.

And, on their questions page:

From NIST website posted 8/21/08:

If you’re still not convinced there’s more to it than we’re being told, then ask yourself: if Tower 7 did come down due to fire, why didn’t Tower 5? Tower 5 was much closer, had devastating structural damage from the Twin Tower collapses, and much more severe fires burning. But, it remained standing. So, did Tower 3,4, and 6. Look below. Do your own size-up. Our lives depend on the ability to guage when a building will collapse - test your skills.

Tower 3 was closer to Twin Towers than WTC 7, and it had significantly more crush damage. But, building is still standing.

Tower 4 - Again, closer and more crush damage. Obvious significant core damage, but building is still standing.

Tower 6 - Again, closer than 7, and obvious massive core damage. But, building is still standing.

You decide, are you going to blindly believe what a government investigation team that refuses to test for explosives residue claims? Just because it would have been logistically difficult to place explosive charges, we don’t test for them? Look for yourself. Review the NFPA 921 guidelines-why did they so blatantly destroy evidence and refuse to test for exotic accelerants? Look at the video examples. You decide, does it appear to have every characteristic of a controlled demolition? How about when you compare it to all the other high-rise infernos we have examples of…all of which are still standing today! And, most importantly - don’t our fallen Brothers deserve the Truth?

Barry Jennings was Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority. He was inside Tower 7 when the second plane had struck tower 2. He very clearly states he heard multiple explosions well before the collapse of Tower 7, and he barely made it out due to these exlosions.

Listen very carefully to his timeline:

Here is his account on ABC moments after the incident - when it is most clear to anybody what they heard. Now, NIST says they have no witness accounts of “explosions”, maybe we can refer them to these videos.

Here’s another video NIST investigators should review.

Again, we are not saying this cannot be explained away.  We ARE challenging NIST as to their claim of NO EVIDENCE of a blast event. We don’t solve crimes or building collapses by debating hypotheticals. We solve them by applying the Scientific method, testing for all possible causes, and thoroughly analyzing the structure, debris, dust, witness accounts, testimony, and documents. Again, you have to ask yourself why are they afraid to test for exotic accelerant residue?

From NIST website posted 8/21/08:

“Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.”

Still don’t believe there’s ANY evidence of BLAST SOUND?

How about radio transmissions and testimony from FDNY members themselves.

YOU BE THE JUDGE.

NFPA 18.15 Analyze Fuel Source. “All available fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until one fuel can be identified as meeting all of the physical damage criteria. For example, if the epicenter of the explosion is identified as a 6ft (1.8 m) crater of pulverized concrete in the center of the floor, fugitive natural gas can be eliminated as the fuel, and only fuels that can create seated explosions should be considered.
Chemical analysis of debris, soot, soil, or air samples can be helpful in identifying the fuel. With explosives or liquid fuels, gas chromatography, mass spectrography, or other chemical tests of properly collected samples may be able to identify their presence.”

Were metal and debris tests done to test for residue of fuels that can cause a 110 story steel structure to turn to dust and collapse at near free fall speed?

Well, according to NIST (the final authority on the cause) there wasn’t enough evidence to test for them. “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.  The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.”

Did we miss something?  Doesn’t 18.15 ”analyze fuel source” say test for all fuel sources that can cause the type of damage we saw?  Doesn’t 19.2.4 “exotic accelerants” say melted steel or concrete is a sign of high temperature accelerants? Doesn’t 18.12.2 “high explosives” say fuel-air mixtures do not produce the type of damage we saw? Didn’t the video and testimonial evidence suggest explosions?

Well, some others did test for them, and here’s what they found.

From 911Research.org we have the following:

Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA’s volunteer investigators did manage to perform “limited metallurgical examination” of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA’s report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.” The New York Times described this as “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon. …read entire article.

And, Dr. Steven Jones analyzed dust samples and found the following:

We’re seeing a very disturbing pattern.  Every indicator to test for explosives is here.  This was one of the largest mass-murders on American Soil.  This was the first time in history any high-rise steel and concrete building collapsed due to fire, let alone three.  Every possibility should have been thoroughly investigated.  However, the evidence was clearly destroyed.  The official investigators refuse to thoroughly test for “controlled demolition.”

You have to ask yourself….WHY? What is there to hide?

What’s the saying?  If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck….?!?

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, August 22, 2008

NIST Claims “New Phenomenon” Occurred For First Time Ever In Collapse Of WTC 7

Yet fails to address why ground zero workers and media outlets had prior knowledge of an “extraordinary event” never before observed an hour in advance, plus myriad of other ignored issues

We are actually being asked to believe the impossible - that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate.

In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7 that news outlets are reporting “puts 9/11 conspiracy theories to bed,” NIST claims that the never before observed “new phenomenon”of “thermal expansion” was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that simply ignores eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that points to the deliberate demolition of the structure.

NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building’s collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”

If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?

This on its own completely destroys the very foundation of NIST’s assertion that a “new phenomenon” was responsible for the collapse.

Which is the more likely scenario - that ground zero officials and media outlets got word that the building was going to be “pulled” - or that they employed clairvoyant powers of deduction that enabled them to foresee an event that had never happened before in history to a building that was structurally reinforced and had suffered limited fires?

NIST claims that the collapse of Building 7 is “The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building.”

We are actually being asked to believe the impossible - that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate.

The issue of molten metal, which was discovered under both the twin towers and WTC 7, suggesting an extremely hot burning agent was used in the demolition process, is completely ignored in NIST’s report, despite it being acknowledged in Appendix C of FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, which stated:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

Speaking during a press conference that was called to counter NIST, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, dismissed the report.

“Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack,” said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused.”

“There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through,” he added, citing NIST’s claim that no evidence suggested loud explosive booms accompanied the collapse of the building by reminding that Thermite, a steel cutting agent, makes no explosive sound.

Even aside from this argument, there were numerous close proximity eyewitnesses who reported loud explosions, including NYPD officer Craig Bartmer and ground zero first responder Kevin McPadden (who also experienced the countdown before the building fell), but this fact was again simply ignored by NIST.

“FEMA found it,” said Gage. “Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers].”

The core of NIST’s explanation, that an “extraordinary event” called “thermal expansion” was to blame for the sudden total collapse of the building is of course on the face of it a fraud when one considers the innumerable number of buildings that have suffered roaring fires across the majority of their floors and remained standing, whereas WTC 7 suffered limited fire damage across a handful of floors.

NIST also claims that the building only fell at 40% free fall speed, as if this isn’t suspicious in itself. Remember that this 47-story behemoth took just 7 seconds to completely collapse within its own footprint falling through the path of most resistance.

As the George Washington blog points out, “NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than free fall speed. But it collapsed a lot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn’t very impressive, that’s like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.”

The George Washington blog has compiled a list of experts in structural engineering and demolition who have all questioned NIST’s conclusion. None of these individuals were approached by NIST to partake in their final report.

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.” I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here).

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
“Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition.”

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
“Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds. It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.”

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
“WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small and localized therefore what is the cause?”

A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded

A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed “does not match the available facts” and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

To claim that the collapse of WTC 7 is “no longer a mystery,” as chief NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder stated yesterday smacks of a desperate attempt to proclaim the authority of the official story by mere words alone, when in reality NIST’s laughable “new phenomenon” claim, the latest in a long line of changing explanations for the obvious demolition of Building 7, only heaps more embarrassment on NIST and makes the official 9/11 story look more untrustworthy than ever before.