NIST lied to cover up the WTC demolition

That fact alone should arouse suspicion.

On the basis of this premature preclusion and disregarding NFPA investigative guidelines, NIST neglected to test for explosive residues at the WTC site. When asked why they didn't look for evidence of explosives, a NIST spokesman replied,
"It would be a waste of tax payers money to look for something that isn't there".

How did NIST know there were no explosives involved, if they didn't look?

NIST claimed there was no "incredibly large sound" that would indicate explosives were used to demolish Building 7. NIST used this false claim to justify their refusal to test for explosive residues at the WTC demolition site.

At the media briefing of the NIST Investigation into the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, August 21, 2008, lead investigator Dr Sham Sunder said ...

"We did not find any evidence that explosives were used in the collapse of Building 7. We ran down detailed computer simulations of blast scenarios - what you see in the slide are the expected air pressures from the smallest possible blast capable of crippling a critical column. This size blast would have produced an incredibly large sound that was not recorded on videos of the collapse nor reported by witnesses"

Video recorded near WTC7 provides evidence of an incredibly loud blast.

This video footage, shot near the pay phone at 66 Murray St, approximately 150m, or two city blocks north of Building 7, provides evidence of an incredibly large blast sound near WTC7 on the morning of 9/11, sometime after the destruction of the Twin Towers. One of the firemen is heard to say...

The composite image below depicts the location of the pay phone on Murray St, (A) as seen in the above video and from Google Maps Street View

Another video shot near St Paul's Chapel, approximately 250m east of WTC7, also provides evidence of an incredibly large blast sound near WTC7 on 9/11,

The composite image below depicts the location of St Paul's Chapel on Broadway and the view looking west toward the WTC site as seen in the above video and from Google Maps Street View.

These videos do not prove that explosives were used to bring down Building 7. Yet NIST claims the absence of this video evidence proves explosives were not used.

These videos refute the claim made by NIST, that "an incredibly large sound was not recorded on videos nor reported by witnesses", and they clearly discredit NIST's decision not to look for evidence of explosives used in the demolition of WTC7.

Consequently, these videos have been ignored, negated or denied by NIST.

Furthermore, credible and corroborating eyewitness accounts by Barry Jennings and Micheal Hess, who witnessed explosions inside Building 7 on the morning of 9/11, have also been ignored by NIST investigators and ommited from their report.

Video shows foreknowledge of WTC7 demolition

At the media briefing on the NIST Investigation into the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, August 21, 2008, lead investigator Dr Sham Sunder said ...

"What we found was that uncontrolled building fires similar to those we have seen in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. The collapse of World Trade Center 7 was primarily due to fires. This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building over 15 stories tall has collapsed primarily due to fire."

If this is true, if the "collapse" of WTC7 was unprecedented, an "extraordinary event", the first known example of total building collapse due to fires alone, how is it that video footage shows workers walking north along West Broadway, two blocks away from WTC7, saying ...

And why did the BBC and CNN report the collpase of WTC7 before it actually happened? What was the basis for this apparent foreknowledge of a supposedly unprecedented event?

Clairvoyant construction workers, a prescient press ... or just a mistake?

And listen to what the building's owner, Larry Silverstein, had to say ...

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

Silverstein's statement seems to imply that a decision was made to deliberately take down the building, as in the manner of a controlled demolition.

The most incredible hypothesis

According to NIST's lead investigator, Dr Sham Sunder, "This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building".

In fact, no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire ... it's never happened.

Dr Sunder told No Lies Radio that NIST had chosen the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of Building 7.

Listen here ...

WTC7 collapsed suddenly, symmetrically and completely, into it's own footprint, exhibiting gravitational acceleration (freefall) and generating an enormous dust cloud, at 5.20 pm on September 11, 2001.

A side-by-side comparison of the WTC Building 7 "collapse" and a known controlled demolition, clearly illustrates a remarkable similarity. To the casual observer, they appear indistinguishable.

Controlled demolition is a well established industry and the only known method for bringing down skyscrapers into their own footprint.

And yet, according to Dr Sunder, NIST did not consider controlled demolition a credible hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7 and hence did not look for evidence of it.

Instead, NIST decided the "most credible" hypothesis was one that described a new phenomenon ... a phenomenon that NIST admits is the "first known instance" of its kind and that FEMA concedes "has only a low probability of occurrence."

NIST's hypothesis describes a phenomenon whereby scattered fires somehow lead to the sudden, simultaneous failure of thousands of structural steel components.

NIST claims, "Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 caused an extraordinary event, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."

And this NIST considers to be the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7... amazing, incredible, pick your word... I'd say unscientific.