And that's the sleight of hand NIST performed when they did the review of the WTC 7 collapse without examining any of the steel beams, girders or columns that fell that day. It was based on computer models.
BTW, NIST why present this on C-Span on late Thursday evening? Kinda of weird hour to lay bare "irrefutable" truths for the general public, isn't it? Did you hope that all of the hoopla over Obama's VP choice the next day would drown out your packet of lies and duplicity?
Why let something like technicalities get in the way of a pre-ordained answer to the question of what DID cause the building to fall rather neatly into its own footprint. All presented and hosted by a self-described "expert" on building construction and fire impact on buildings, Shyam Sunder.
And who is this Shyam Sunder? An engineer or fire control specialist or something along that line? NO.
Shyam Sunder is the James L. Frank Professor of Accounting, Economics, and Finance at the Yale School of Management; Professor in the Department of Economics; and Professor (Adjunct) at the Yale Law School. He is a world-renowned accounting theorist and experimental economist. His research contributions include financial reporting, dissemination of information in security markets, statistical theory of valuation and design of electronic markets.
It would appear that there are TWO Shyam Sunder's in America, the one who toils in books for Yale and the one who is some sort of engineering genius on the collapse of WTC 7.
From the NIST report:
“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. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building’s construction—namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—did not play a significant role in the collapse.
Yet, in the 2002 FEMA report, they said that the diesel fuel DID contribute to the collapse?? Don't you feds have a Lie Control Ministry that coordinates these multitude of lies and deceits?
Want to see these pics of this out of control fire the NIST said was responsible for the collapse? Click on this PDF doc to see the entire packet of NIST's bought and paid for lies.
Here's NIST's pic of that raging fire:
BTW, NIST, when i tried to copy and save these photos, i ran up against a Password protected block?? What's with that? If this is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, why try and hide the evidence from the public? As you can see, NIST, it didn't work.
In the next picture, you'll see the beams and girders, pre-fire, with plenty of fire-proofing. What about that, Mr. Sunder? No jets hit WTC 7, so why did the fire-proofing fail?
"Uhhh, just read the report, our credentials are impeccable."
This is the "out of control" contents fire that brought down Mighty Casey... oops, wrong fairy tale. As any firefighter can tell you, a contents fire is a fire that consumes the buildings contents, like furniture, carpet, paint, paper documents, etc.
Sunder wants us to believe that ALL of the offices and rooms in that massive structure had approximately the same contents, which caught fire at the same time and burned at the same rate and emitted the same temperatures.
BS. That doesn't happen, except in Sunder and NIST's Department of Lies, Deceit and Propaganda.
What about a controlled demolition thru the use of explosives?
Again, from the NIST report: The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a “sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,” yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos.
Except that when NIST showed the CBS video of the collapse, you know the one that had the squibs popping out of several floors immediately prior to and during the collapse, well they conveniently cut that side of the building out of the video, Photoshopped it out of existence.
No muss, no fuss, according to NIST, it's now official, that portion of the video never existed.
And if if doesn't exist now, it didn't exist in the past and if it's not in the past, it won't be available for the future, right, Mr. Orwell?
Sunder went to great lengths to pound into our heads that there were NO explosions, since an explosion would have been heard all over downtown Manhattan. Except when one astute attendee pointed out that thermite doesn't make that kinda sound, Sunder ignored the question and went to the next one, like the one from a reporter from InfoWars. (And what about that all that molten steel was still in liquid form weeks later?)
This Infowars guy was laying bare NIST's lies by quoting NIST's past statements and was formulating a helluva question when the lights dimmed and the mic was slowly removed from this guy's face. By the time the lights came full back on, the mic was too far away to hear what the InfoWars guy was saying.
What about his questions, Mr. Sunder?
No problem, just dismiss them with a condescending "Read the report, then you can ask questions."
Time for one more question and this one came from an obvious plant.
"Uhh, Mr. Sunder, what are you going to do with the people that refuse to believe these facts?" Nice pitch, for softball.
Another lame ass answer, then the mic came off and Sunder sat down. Case solved and dismissed.
Yeah, right. And why is the top spot not filled? Did that guy have a pang of conscience and quit before this whitewash was made available to the public?