Two new 2010 release FBI FOIA videos of the man waving the white shirt on the 106th floor of the North Tower and the supposed plane collision in the South Tower that kills him with a blast from inside the North Tower.
I think the question is whether: The impact from the plane and subsequent explosion in the other tower killed the man (presumably others as well) – or a well timed explosion in the North Tower went off at the same time as the plane impact on the south tower? Any thoughts?
As we announced on August 31, 2010, the International Center for 9/11 Studies has secured the release of tens of thousands of photographs, and hundreds of hours of video footage, from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under the Freedom of Information Act. We are working on ways to get this data in the hands of interested researchers, we need the communities help to examine this material, much of which has not been seen before.
We are pleased to announce that we have made our first release of this material available for download. This first release is the “NIST Cumulus Video” folder which is part of the NIST Cumulus Database we received. It contains over 6500 video clips that NIST used in its investigation. It is important to note that NIST did not voluntarily turn over the entire Cumulus database to us. The alleged copyright holders of a small amount of material in the Cumulus database objected to NIST releasing their materials, and NIST complied with all such requests. We are currently engaged in litigation against NIST, and will continue fighting for complete release of these materials.
The original “NIST Cumulus Video” folder is approximately 924GB. To make it possible to distribute, we encoded it using the x264 software library. The result is roughly 86GB and has no noticeable difference in quality. (See http://911datasets.org/index.php/Release_14_-_NIST_Cumulus_Video_Database for the encoding details.). If you download the compressed data set and find interesting items you believe need to be examined in their original, uncompressed format, please contact the International Center for 9/11 Studies using the Contact Us page.
Any theory that does not match experiment is wrong. It doesn’t matter what the computer models predict, how much funding is behind it, what the experts say, or what everyone “thinks”. Nothing can fool the laws of physics.
This video highlights the very obvious and serious differences between the way that WTC 7 deformed as it descended and the NIST computer models of the same event.
The NIST models are visual the end-product of their computer model, which forms the basis of their conclusions.
After filing a lawsuit that prompted NIST to release more than 3 terabytes of photographs and videos from their investigation into the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 on 9/11, the International Center for 9/11 Studies has obtained evidence that suggests NIST edited several videos of the collapse of Building 7 in order to hide evidence of a controlled implosion.
The Center filed a FOIA Request with NIST on January 26, 2009, seeking production of “all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses.” Following several unsuccessful attempts to get NIST to even acknowledge receipt of the Request, the Center was forced to file a lawsuit on May 28, 2009. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the Request was assigned a reference number, and NIST began periodically releasing batches of responsive records.
The Center has now begun posting some of those images and videos online, the first batch of which is from an external hard disk drive “NIST WTC Investigation Cumulus Video Clips.”
In one of the clips, the video of which has been in the public domain for years, a loud, low-frequency boom can be heard just before the east penthouse of WTC 7 falls. Once the support columns that held up the penthouse are taken out, the rest of the building falls almost within its own footprint.
However, in subsequent clips released by NIST, where the camera is located nearer to the building, the collapse of the penthouse is clearly edited out of the footage.
The International Center for 9/11 Studies has secured the release of hundreds of hours of video footage and tens of thousands of photographs used by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for its investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7. This material is being released to the Center under the Freedom of Information Act, in response to a lawsuit the Center filed against NIST.
The Center filed a FOIA Request with NIST on January 26, 2009, seeking production of “all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses.” Following several unsuccessful attempts to get NIST to even acknowledge receipt of the Request, the Center was forced to file a lawsuit on May 28, 2009. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the Request was assigned a reference number, and NIST began periodically releasing batches of responsive records. To date, the Center has received over 300 DVDs and several external hard disk drives that contain responsive records – more than 3 terabytes of data so far – and NIST has indicated that additional records will be released in the future.
We are currently looking at the best ways to distribute these materials to interested researchers and journalists around the world. It has taken NIST more than 8 months so far to produce a partial archive of photographs and videos in their possession, but we hope to be more efficient in our efforts. Because of the huge volume of data, we are working on a wiki-style website to facilitate review and discussion of any interesting items that are discovered by researchers.
by David Chandler source: 9/11 Blogger Aug 17, 2010
1. I have completed a video showing the analysis of the Balzac-Vitry controlled demolition that used hydrolics rather than explosives to initiate a total demolition. This analysis shows deceleration upon collision, as predicted in the paper, “The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,” by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti. It also illustrates the symmetry of destruction, contrary to the “crush down” followed by “crush up” scenario propounded by Zdenek Bazant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
Anders Björkman is a structural engineer from France who became an early member of Richard Gage’s AE911Truth. He had previously given speeches in his country to people whose children had seen footage of the Trade Towers’ destruction and were worried that buildings could collapse from the top down. He reassured these parents that this couldn’t happen and posted his presentation on his web site where it gradually developed.
Anders Björkman
Björkman became a formal critic of the “Progressive Collapse” or “Piledriver” theory promoted by Dr. Zdenek Bazant, a consultant for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in its work on 9-11. The Piledriver Theory basically posits that prolonged heating weakened the support columns of a single floor which caused the upper section to crush what was below it in a chain-reaction all the way to the bottom.
“I explained on my website that you cannot destroy a building by dropping the top on the bottom; you have to destroy it from the bottom,” Björkman said. “Then a lot of people criticized that and said, ‘But Dr. Bazant says the opposite, and he has written all these papers,’ so of course I looked at these papers, and said, ‘This Bazant is nonsense.’ But others said, ‘But he’s peer-reviewed. It has been published in a scientific journal—the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.’”
Björkman contacted Ross Corotis, the journal’s editor, saying Bazant was incorrect and asking if he could write a response to the article. Corotis said yes, so Björkman wrote what he called “a very simple article” and submitted it in early February to the journal. In June Corotis contacted Björkman and told him the intended to publish it, but first Björkman needed to sign a copyright agreement, which he immediately returned. In September Björkman contacted the journal to investigate the delay and was told Corotis was waiting for Bazant to submit “closure” or his response to Björkman’s response. Björkman’s article and Bazant’s response were finally published in July of 2010.
Björkman explains why he vigorously disputes Bazant’s “Piledriver” idea.
There is ample evidence, from both witnesses and recordings, of explosions associated with the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7). NIST sidestepped investigating explosions and explosives by setting up an artificially high threshold of interest. They swept aside any testimony or recordings of explosions that would not register 130-140 dB one kilometer away. They established this criterion using RDX (one of the loudest explosives) in a scenario that produced a far higher sound level than other possible uses of explosives to bring down the building. Then they turned around and used sound level as the sole criterion for deciding whether the use of explosives was a credible hypothesis. By this maneuver, they sidestepped investigating the testimony of explosives or possible evidence of explosive residues. This is just one more instance of fraudulent behavior on the part of the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center disaster.
This is a great presentation! It’s all introductions and appetizers untill 7 minutes into the first video. Again, the meat and potatoes are starting at 7 minutes in.
In response to FOIA request, NIST has refused to provide copies of transcripts and tapes of interviews with the first responders about Michael Hess and Barry Jennings trapped in WTC7.
Excerpt from NIST NCSTAR 1-8: proof of existence and classification of the interviews with explicit references to the two men trapped in the WTC 7:
Investigate NIST Officials Shyam Sunder and John Gross
Summary: I am writing to urge immediate investigation of Shyam Sunder and John Gross of NIST for the following possible violations in their investigations of the destruction of the 3 WTC towers in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001: (1) waste, fraud and abuse, (2) making false and/or incompetent statements, (3) mismanagement, and (4) possible misprision of felonies.
Note: for better readability, we have removed important references to this online version of the paper. The original published version contains several pages of references.
“Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? … NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.” NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11. But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Brian 
.jpg)
