and i've been very involved with the nine eleven truth movement for several years now a few years ago when i first heard that the prospect that the buildings in new york city were brought down with explosives i was initially quite skeptical of this because i didn't see any compelling reason to see why this had to be the case but what i did in response to this idea is i started looking more carefully at the videos and to see what i could see like is there evidence that this is this is or strong reason to believe that this is actually what happened and i started just on a qualitative basis of looking at things and then little by little i got more of a measurement and i brought my physics background into this i'm a physics teacher i've taught college level and high school physics and i bring that into my work because you'll see as we go along what i've done is i've posted strong video clips on you tube and what we're going to do on this d v d is string these together with commentary and to try to give the bigger picture the little clips on each one has a like a single theme but i'm going to try and weave them together the first clip is called north tower exploding and all it is is an infinite loop just showing the north tower coming down repeatedly and in the process i'll be narrating on the things that i'm seeing what you need to do is see what you are seen and use this just as an opportunity to open your eyes a little bit to starting point and science is observation what you are seeing here is what happened to the north tower of the world trade center second of three buildings to collapse on nine eleven two thousand and one i use the word collapse words can be deceptive what do you really see happening here there's a tremendous amount of falling debris but under the canopy of debris do you see the rapid seams of explosive ejections of material some of the jets have been clocked at over one hundred miles per hour i'll call them explosions because it's hard to find other words that describe what we are seeing here explosions are not isolated and few there continuous and widespread it moved progressively down the faces of the building keeping pace with the falling debris perhaps you can imagine a natural cause i can't notice that the explosions are occurring on multiple floors at once over a wide zone not in a floor by floor sequence that might be explained by pancaking collapse noticed there are explosions far below the point of collapse some are isolated and focused these are often referred to as squibs and are commonly seen in controlled demolitions however this is not a standard controlled demolition the building is being progressive really destroyed from the top down by waves of explosions creating a huge debris field the destruction is in a way i not just in one wave most obvious as a rapid sequence of explosions near the visible corner of the building but simultaneously we can see another wave of explosions much further down the face of the building under the canopy of falling debris notice the both waves of explosions progress down the face of the building nearly keeping pace with the falling debris just a few feet away slabs of concrete did not fall to the ground and smashed to dust there is almost no concrete in the rubble pile notice that the concrete is being forcefully ejected outwards from the sides of the building already pulverized to dust noticed that imbedded in the dust clouds are huge girders and entire sections of steel framing that are being hurled out of the building the horizontal speed of some of the girders has been cocked over seventy mph some of these girders impaled themselves on the sides of neighboring buildings some landed as much as two football fields away from the base of the tower what could hurl heavy girders with such force and given such speed some people have suggested that the weight of the tower crashing down on the girders caused them to flex and they sprung sideways by a spring action but we are not seeing isolated jumping girders we're seeing a major fraction of the mass of the building steel concrete office furniture and the remains of human beings are reduced to small pieces of rubble and fine dust and being explosively ejected in all directions bone fragments are found on the roofs of the chasing buildings the bones were not crushed in the falling mouse where they would have been trapped in the debris pile they were pulverized along with everything else and blown out in all directions the nist investigators have claimed that the top section of the building above the plane impact point came down like a pile driver crushing the undamaged lower section of the building all the way to the ground the top section of the building is however noticeably a there is nothing above the ring of explosions except for a fountain of debris can you see a pile driver that does not appear that the building is being crushed by anything the waves of destruction and explosive ejections of material are occurring a wide zone that continues all the way to the top of what remains of the building the scientists at nist did not model the collapse of the towers their analysis was gravely flawed in many ways but the biggest flaw was that the scope of their investigation was artificially limited they took their analysis only to the point of initiation of collapse as though all that followed was inevitable and needed no explanation the scope of their investigation was artificially limited to what might have happened or could have happened to begin the collapse what they explicitly did not take into account is what actually happened by limiting their investigation to the natural precursors of collapse plane damage in the fire they ruled out from the start any possibility of discovering evidence of planned demolition in other words anything that occurred during the collapse itself such as the evidence you are seeing here was explicitly scripted out of the investigation any analytical model of the collapse no matter how simple or how sophisticated is a bad model and bad science if it does not come back full circle to explain the actual observations what do you see first video that we looked at was building one of the world trade center complex also known as the north tower it's identifiable as the one that has the antenna on top of the roof building to look very much life except it didn't have the antenna and there was a third building that completely and totally was demolished on september eleventh which is building seven this is this there are seven buildings in the world trade center complex and all the buildings were demolished to one extent or another but buildings one two and seven were completely demolished into disassociated materials that landed well in the case of buildings one and two it was spread all over the place but in the case of building seven it was a nice tidy pile right in its own footprint this building is it would basically cover a football field it's one hundred metres wide and it's forty seven stories tall so it's about it's close to half the height of the world trade center towers and it was a huge building it was not hit by an aircraft and it was it dropped at five twenty in the evening and it just was a sudden onset and it was a very unusual collapse people who look at this building for the first time frequently this is all it takes to realize something very fishy is going on here it looks like a controlled demolition so what i'm doing in this next video is taking measurements of the roof line as it comes down i have heard various people say that the building was coming down close to free fall i wanted to get the measurement myself i teach physics and one of the tools i use in the classroom is an analysis tool that enables you to take a video clip and put markers on the training and then as long as you have something in the picture that you know the size so you can calibrate the measurement you can actually get the data from the little marks you put on it and use this to calculate things like velocities and accelerations and so forth so this  was one of the key measurements i did fairly early on and fact the one i'm going to show you it says it's a revised version i did an earlier version before this one this particular video was made in august of two thousand and eight at the time that didn't miss the national institute for standards and technology released their building seven analysis and gave data in there that allowed me to get a good calibration and so this is the result of that measurement this is a revised analysis of the downward acceleration of the world trade center building seven which collapsed in a manner suggest of controlled demolition on september eleventh two thousand and one by earlier analysis which was posted on you tube under my own name was based on the best information i had at the time but now i've been able to improve on my results using new information available in the recently released nist final report on building seven despite the accurate data available to nist their final report makes dishonest claims about the rate of fall of the building i'll come back to the nist report at the end of this video in my earlier video analysis i use the width of the building which is known to be one hundred meters to calibrate the scale of the image in this remake i have used the vertical spacing of the windows visible as horizontal streaks on the face of the building from this i was able to identify the twenty ninth floor which is listed in the nist document as having a height of six hundred eighty three feet six inches measuring from some baseline which they don't specify they have the blueprints i don't but i take this measurement to be reliable the other measurement they give is the height of the roof lin which they state is nine hundred twenty five feet four inches above their baseline the difference of these two heights converted to meters is the basis for the calibration of this video the actual measurements were done exactly as before the cursor was placed on the corner of the building and marks were placed frame by frame the built in functions of the physics talk it software capture the positions and times of these marks in a data table from which it computes and displays various kinds of graphs i'm here plotting velocity as a function of time the slope of this kind of graph gives the acceleration notice that the data hovers close to zero for nearly a second and then it drops precipitously from the moment of the drop slope of the line appears essentially constant for about two and a half seconds by marking two data points the program can compute the best straight line to fit the data for the linear portion of the graph the slope of the line is the acceleration down here at the bottom the computer to acceleration is shown minus nine point eight eight five meters per second squared the minus sign indicates downward acceleration acceleration of gravity from new york city is nine point eight zero two meters per second the measured acceleration is within one percent of the acceleration of gravity given the greyness and size of the image one percent is not a significant difference from the actual acceleration of gravity so the most accurate way to characterize the result is to say acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall noticed that a little after the three second mark on our graph about two and a half seconds after the building drops the acceleration ceases to be uniform this indicates the falling building is starting to encounter more resistance any measurement of the average acceleration that continues for more than the first two and a half seconds of fall will show a lower average acceleration masking the fact that for a significant two and a half seconds the building was in literal freefall freefall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion in other words the gravitational potential energy of the building is not available the crusher deform anything during all of the gravitational potential energy of the building is being converted into kinetic energy and nothing else any breaking bending crushing or pulverizing of the building components is occurring without the assistance of the free falling portion of the building any force the top portion of the building might exert on the lower portion would be reflected in a reaction force that would produce an observable slowing of the rate of fall or reaction force is observable in this graph only in the last seconds when the velocity strays from the straight line let's return to the nist final report on w t c seven i would like to clarify one thing right away on page forty there is a phrase quote assuming that the descent speed was approximately constant unquote sumption is clearly falls from even casual observation however the fact that they proceed to use a formula for constant acceleration clearly indicates the constant speed reference is a misstatement or actually assuming constant acceleration more bizarre is the claim that quote the actual time for the upper eighteen stories to collapse based on video evidence was approximately forty percent longer than the computed freefall time if you start with a forty percent increase in the time of fall and work backwards to compute the effect of acceleration their claim is equivalent to saying if celebration of the building is only five meters per second squared which is fifty one percent the acceleration of gravity our results however clearly show a significant stretch of time in which the celebration of the building is indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity itself you know other words complete freefall they did not use a method that sampled the position vs time to show the velocity profile as was done here the nist report uses only two data points i suppose a start of the collapse and the time the roof line disappears from view by choosing an early starting time several seconds prior to the onset of freefall and computing only the average between that point and the disappearance of the roof line they gloss over everything that happened in between i'm sure they detected some movement of the roof line at the point where they started the clock as a rationale for choosing that point even our data here shows a tiny amount of motion in the first second but what was going on during this time is qualitatively different from what happened moments later the event triggering the start of their measurement could more accurately be described as precursor movement this is like timing the acceleration of a car in a drag race where the starting light goes on then the driver revs his engine a few times before letting out the clutch it may be a fair way to penalize a sloppy driver but it doesn't say anything about the acceleration of the car once it  actually moving this method tells us nothing about the nature of the motion itself they merely assume uniform acceleration over a time interval in which it is clear that the acceleration is not uniform mislabeling the constant speed indicates sloppy work but asserting uniform acceleration for an interval where the building sits nearly motionless for several seconds and drops for several seconds in freefall is beyond incompetence it is a crude blatant lie the average acceleration is a meaningless quantity it is the instantaneous acceleration that is significant because the acceleration at any moment is an indication of the forces at work to measure and publish meaningless average acceleration when sufficient data and a multi million dollar budget are available to measure the actual velocity profile constitutes either gross incompetence or an attempt to obfuscate the issue this is high school physics we're talking about if they can't get the high school physics right what confidence can we have in there multicolored computer animated whiz bang simulations to tell us the exact sequence of girder failures without any physical evidence for any of it i'm a high school teacher i teach my students better lab practice than this demonstrates here in this video i have measured the velocity profile and instantaneous acceleration of the building with orders of magnitude better precision than this and i did it was zero budget a free software tool commonly used in high school physics classes and a copy of a video downloaded from the internet i know the guys at nist are not incompetent but i am left to conclude is that their only purpose in even mentioning freefall is to muddy the water and the rail the discussion the rate of fall of the building is an embarrassment to the official theory freefall is a small detail in the whole complex analysis but it is not a minor issue buildings cannot fall at freefall through themselves because even a weakened building requires energy to break up the pieces crush the concrete and push things around in the following building pushes things the fall is not free the things push back and the reaction forces will measurably slow the descent of the building this is why one would reasonably expect crumbling structures to come down in a tumbling halting irregular manner in short the evidence is clear we are witnessing not the collapse of a building nist released their report on building seven in august of two thousand and eight one of the things they did was to have a technical briefing and at first i thought well no way am i going to be accepted to give  to ask questions at this briefing because it was limited to engineers or scientists with institutional affiliations of some kind but i want to head and i applied anyway and guess what i was given the password and just five minutes before the briefing started i was unable to submit a question which i did so this video coming here is shows a little bit of what happened at that briefing in august two thousand and eight after a seven year delay nist the government agency charged with investigating the world trade center collapse was released the draft of their final report on the collapse of world trade center building seven for public comment in that report they claim that the time for the building to fall the first eighteen stories that's the part of the collapse visible on many videos was forty percent longer than it would have taken had been in freefall i responded with a video posted on you tube called w t c seven in freefall in which i showed there for approximately two and a half seconds building seven fell at a rate indistinguishable from freefa furthermore in that video i showed that nist methodology was not a valid way to analyze the true motion of the building and this measurement was not just wrong it was fraudulent then on august twenty sixth miss technical briefing in which engineers and others with technical credentials could pose questions i'm a high school physics teacher tried figured i would be excluded however i went ahead and registered citing my membership of the american association of physics teachers as my professional affiliation by the way i am not speaking for a p t that was just my passport in the briefing to my surprise my credentials were accepted and i was able to pose a question here's a little of how it went our next question comes from david chandler the american association of physics teachers any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of the seven  acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity yet you report contradicts this claim in forty percent slower than freefall based on a single data point how can such a publicly visible easily measurable quantity be set aside can you repeat the question place or any number of measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of the seven fell w acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity yet the report contradicts this claiming forty percent slower than the fi freefall based on a single data point below it and if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the seventeen for the roofline of the video today to collapse down to seventeen floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can see anything in the video is about three point nine seconds what the end alice is shows and the structural analysis shows the collapse analysis shows at that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those seventeen floors to disappear is five point four seconds but one point five seconds or roughly forty percent more time for that freefall t happen and that is not at all unusual because there was a structural resistance that was provided in this particular case and you had you know you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and where everything was not instantaneous buried in all that verbiage dr sundara sane is freefall for the eighteen stories under consideration would have taken three point nine seconds however their computer model simulating collapse required five point four seconds the slower collapse time was to be expected since there was structure supporting the building as it fell slowing the fall but there was a progression of failures that had to take place and that these were not instantaneous all of this makes sense as long as you don't look at the evidence the evidence shows that freefall actually occurred but since their computer modeling could not come up with a scenario that would allow for free fall they had to declare free fall out of bounds and try to cover up the evidence the problem is unlike the columns and girders buried deep inside the building the motion of the building is right out in plain view since their model predicted five point four seconds for the eighteen story collapse they do to flee conjured up a five point four second measurement to match they had to stretch themselves to do it but they did it they found the disappearance time and they went out of their way to pick an artificially early start time exactly five point four seconds earlier this they compared with freefall time this next question comes from dr stephen jones discusses the fall time for the seven on page the building to send a constant speed i'm sure constant speed was a simple misstatement the correct response should have been what will fix that but no here's how they handle that question  t to fall till it disappeared from view between the two buildings seen in the video that time was established from the video by a single that time to be five point four seconds i didn't hear what's in there did you this is john grosz one of the lead engineers for the nist report on the collapse of the twin towers he has a d in structural engineering from cornell university he taught engineering at the university of colorado in boulder has a long resume on top of that don't you think he probably knows the difference between speed and acceleration don't you think he could explain it with perfect clarity if he wasn't so preoccupied trying to cover his tracks don't you find it interesting that the five point four seconds he measured for the collapse time just happens to exactly match the theoretical prediction of their model that kind of precision is incredibly rare when modeling real world events incredible is the right word it's not credible this measurement has all the characteristics of what we call dry lobbying manipulating the data to fit a predetermined outcome it's an ethics violation in science on a par with plagiarism any engineers engaging in this kind of sleight of hand should lose their licenses to larger implication of course is dry lobbying in this kind of investigation would constitute a criminal cover up that was august this is november the final version of the mist the seven report just came out and guess what we have a revised analysis of the building collapse rate constant speed is out constant acceleration is out instead we have three phases of collapse with a whopping two point two five seconds of absolute freefall irrelevant five point four seconds is still defended in the wording of plays no apparent role other than c y a for john gross and associates so freefall is hereby official dogma how are they going to handle all the ramifications of that inconvenient fact read on it says the three stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis discussed in chapter twelve mists and sistar one dash nine that's it freefall went from an impossibility the required backflips in logic to obfuscate to a simple fact to be measured then declared consistent with their fire induced collapse hypothesis apparently they have now decided that freefall is ok as long as it is seen as a part of a longer stretch of time that covers the required five point four seconds in other words they drop the bullying tactic of blowing smoke to obscure the facts and adopted an alternate bullying tactic cover it with a lie and walk away however nist cannot walk away from freefall now that nist has certified freefall as fact take a look at the implications for those of you who don't have a lot of physics background one of the concepts that might be a little bit tricky to understand is the difference between constant speed and constant acceleration select elaborate on that just a little bit  r constant speed as if you were look at the speedometer on your car and it's holding steady so if you're going down the freeway at sixty miles an hour that's constant speed going down at thirty miles an hour that's a constant speed it's a slower constant speed ok but if you're at a stop sign and then you start up this but ometer is going to be increasing and so as the speedometer needle goes up if it goes up at a uniform rate you're picking up speed and as time goes on you're picking up more speed and you're picking up more and more speed and if you do that in a uniform raid that's constant acceleration in the case of gravity if i drop something it's accelerating that the thing that you drop is going to accelerate because it starts off at rest and then as time goes by it's going to pick up equal increments of speed and equal amounts of time so in the first second it picks up a little speed in the next second it picks up another equal amount of speed and so forth and out and that's what we mean by acceleration so excel aeration is the rate of change of speed just like speed is the rate of change of position so these are related quantities but they're very distinctly different interesting to note that even nist had some trouble with that concept so don't feel bad curious to know how did nist go about doing their measurement like they got an erroneous measurement from which they could claim that it took forty percent longer than freefall even though it's obvious just side looking at it that it's close to freefall and with a measurement you can see it's pretty much right at freefall so how do they do this i'm just going to let this video speak for itself this is how i tracked down the way nist did that measurement part two of this series was going to be an exploration of the significance of this admission that world trade center building seven underwent a period of free fall acceleration that will have to wait for part three after suggesting in part one of this video that john gross is method for determining the time a fall might constitute dry lapping in other words falsifying measurements to support a pre determined outcome i got curious to know exactly what event he picked to start the clock but measurement is a little tedious but the result is very significant that's often the way it is in science so stay with me on this one let's start with john gross explanation of how he determined the time to fall by the way you might recall this was not the question he was asked but it is the answer picked as the start of collapse we have to work backward the ending point of his measurement was when the roof line came down to the level of the twenty ninth floor in our video there's a structure on the roof of the foreground building that lines up with the twenty ninth floor of building seven so it's easy to identify the import of the video into a measurement program called video point which has a frame counter and step forward to the frame where the roof line lines up with the foreground marker that's frame one seventy eight counting from the first frame of the video clip i'm using at thirty frames per second five point four seconds comes out to be one hundred sixty two frames subtracting this from frame one seventy eight brings us to frame sixteen so let's go back and see what's happening at or about frame sixteen i put a red mark on frame sixteen so as it goes by you recognize it let's go back to the beginning and step through this section of the video watch for the beginning of the collapse one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven twelve thirteen fourteen fifteen sixteen seventeen eighteen nineteen twenty twenty one twenty two twenty three twenty four twenty five twenty six twenty seven twenty eight twenty nine thirty did you see the collapse begin i didn't try rewinding the video a few times it's pretty boring there's not the slightest hint of any collapse until frame forty forty forty one forty two forty three forty four forty five forty six forty seven forty eight forty nine fifty two one fifty two fifty three fifty four fifty five fifty six fifty seven fifty eight fifty nine sixty sixty one sixty two sixty three sixty four sixty five sixty six sixty seven sixty eight sixty nine seventy there's a tiny motion of the corner of the west penthouse at frame forty and there is no more motion and tell about frame forty six note that the motion of the penthouse precedes the movement of the roof line there is no measurable movement of the roof line until frame forty six that's a full second beyond frame sixteen even then there isn't any progressive ongoing movement of the roof line until about frame sixty by then we're back to just over three point nine seconds of collapse time or in other words the onset of the only rationale i can see for choosing frame sixteen to start the clock is to make the measurement come out to exactly five point four seconds to agree with prediction of this collapse model but what if i'm wrong but if they did see some tiny movement on a clear version of the video that tiny movement whatever it might have been did not last it would have had to have been a glitch and the scientists at nist would recognize it as a glitch because there is no measurable difference in the height of the roof line for the next twenty to thirty frames what can we conclude you can draw your own conclusions but i think it's pretty clear that the whole idea there was any kind of real five point four second collapse interval is a fiction it's a crude fabrication and the three stage collapse sequence is pseudo science in the service of an ongoing cover up in part three we will return to the central question in conceding freefall what has nist actually measurement i did in part two of this video is how i actually determine when the start time was however it's not very graphically appealing i've what i did later was i added a clock to the video sequence i actually selected out just those five point four seconds by themselves and i did a separate run just so that you can actually see what this timing really looked like so let's watch that now in part two of the video series w t c seven nist finally admits freefall i look at mists claim the building seven took five point four seconds for the top of the roof line to descend to the level of the twenty ninth floor i wanted to address the question what was going on when this team started their clock the answer not much the video i created at the time showed my actual process of discovery i stepped through the video and counted frames i have since created a more graphic illustration of the famous five point four second interval this time i've added a clock to the frames each full cycle marks one second here is the five point four second here it is again in slow motion i notice that the building doesn't start falling right away how about now maybe now the clock was started a second and a half before the corner of the building started to move and about a second prior to any noticeable movement of the penthouse there is nothing subtle here this is the measurement nist use to compare to claims that the building came down at free fall whatever they might claim was happening at their starting point it had nothing to do with the rate of fall of the building ok part three of the series actually is what i was intending to do as part two this is going to spell out the implications of this mission that building seven went through a period of freefall shyam sunder is the lead investigator for the nist analysis of the collapse of world trade center building seven in a technical briefing on august twenty sixth dr sooner clearly explained why freefall for trade center seven was impossible you know it's a show there's a difference in time between a freefall time a freefall time would be an object that has no structural components below it and that is not at all unusual because that was a structural resistance that was provided in this particular know you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place you know everything was not instantaneous that was before they were forced to acknowledge that freefall 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 would be an object that has  suitors original remarks make sense under the assumption of a natural collapse anything at an elevated height has a gravitational potential energy if it falls and none of the energy is used for other things along the way all of that energy is 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 will be less kinetic energy so the fall will be slower in the case of a falling building the only way it can go into freefall 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 freefall 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 measurement 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 freefall acceleration doesn't build up gradually the graph simply turns a corner the building went from full support to zero support instantly this 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 superimposed 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 wet 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 freefall the raw data speaks for itself one moment the building is holding the next moment it lets go and in complete freefall the onset of freefall 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 northwest corner and this recent measurement confirming freefall was based on a point midway along the roof line the fact that the roof stayed level shows the building was in freefall across the entire with a collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure or a few column failures or sequence of column failures all twenty four interior columns and fifty eight perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of eight 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 acceptance of freefall 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 twelve nist and see star one cash nine unquote in other words they're giving the appearance of claiming freefall is ok but actually it's the five point four second duration of their three that matches their model but we saw in part two of this video series that the five point four seconds depends on an artificially early start time which has no valid observational basis without the five point building is impossible this brings us to their computer model and this so called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model is sumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern that must be how it happened the problem is if something unexpected was going on like explosives for instance you're not going to discover it in the 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 and this investigation has been compared to conducting an autopsy without the corpse as of two thousand and five nist reported having only two hundred thirty six pieces of steel from the world trade center complex none of them unambiguously identified as being from world trade center seven we've all watch c s i 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 there was a cover up knowing there was a cover up is a strong indication there was a crime someone 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 this claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena so let's look at  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 are able to get their model to produce is their model realistic we don't know some models are chaotic in the mathematical sense in other words tiny variations on the inputs might result in wildly different outcomes is nist 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 it's called selection bias if you think about it methodology is explicitly based on a selection bias even if you could show what might have happened it doesn't show what actually did happen the very fact that nist has not released their model strongly suggests 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 in their assumptions they have really not released their report and the fact that this is their final report indicates they do 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 in this model is it does not allow for free fall the best they could do is five point four seconds for the building to crumple down through eighteen floors crumpling absorbs energy and that makes freefall impossible there is nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three stage collapse with a 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 and this claim to found a way 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 freefall with no plausible mechanisms other than explosive demolition we have an official investigation by a government agency that has fraudulent manipulated data has refused to even consider existing physical evidence that explosives were used they have wrapped themselves and their data in secrecy and offer 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 first of all it was not single handedly there are a number of people who submitted requests for correction of the term in writing to me yes i did and several other people did as well and stephen jones played a role right there in the conference as you saw so there was not just a single handed anything the other side of it i don't think that's necessarily true that what i did there forcing us to make this change because if you notice sean cinder pretty much blew off my question i mean he'd talked all around to eventually gave the rationale for why it couldn't have happened based on physical principles and so forth but he basically could have just dropped it there and let it go there are lots of lies in this document and why not one more why did they feel necessary it was necessary to come back and actually change their mission that it's free fall i've been pondering this and one of the things that i noticed was if you look at the fact that when stephen jones asked his question he asked why did you assume that it was constant speed versus constant acceleration and in a sense i had i noticed that same comment i thought it's hardly worth asking because it's clearly just a mis statement like it in the very next paragraph it says i mean there's an equation that's based on the assumption of constant acceleration so it's clear that they weren't acting on a constant speed kind of assumption that's just the word they used and they could have changed the word and been done with it but in the process of the of this conference john gross talked about this for about a minute in which he talked all around the subject and didn't really address it and somebody else the eventually came in and said i think we'll have to fix this in the document so in the sense right there on film they committed to changing the document however only would have had to done all there would have had to have done was simply change the word speed to excel or ration and they would have fixed the document why did they do this complete that seemed over and above i have a speculation and it's purely a speculation but i think it has some merit occurs to me that somebody nist actually has some integrity probably a lot of people at nist have integrity and they were they didn't want to sign their names to this kind of a document there's good scientists at notice and they're being controlled by political hacks these guys at the top it's like the bush administration on many occasions overrode the science by political considerations and that was happening here so the people at the top were determining what was going to be in the report and i'm sure that the scientists who actually did have integrity were chafing under this on kind of a constituent and what i see is the possibility is that what stephen jones and i did was actually create an opening and somebody at nist picked up the ball and ran with it this gave them an opportunity they had committed to do a change and this was their opportunity to actually do something real and they put it on the change possibly i don't know for what happened i don't know the internal dynamics possibly johnny gross got pulled off of the committee or something that was doing this or something else i'm not really sure all the players and the roles they took but somebody did something there i just want to address this fact there are good people within the us who need to come forward we need daniel ellsberg type people in this situation to come forward and make themselves known and make what they know public because this is what it's going to take to really break this thing open we can point out flaws we can point out the obvious and point out the physics and so forth but what it's going to take possibly to actually get some action on the nine eleven truth to actually see justice done is to have people who know what happened come forward and tell what they know and i first started measuring the videos from nine eleven one of the first things i measured were high speed horizontal objections from the building and there are chunks of material that are obviously large heavy pieces that are plowing through the air at high speed  many of them if not most of them are trailing very large plumes of white smoke and so these kinds of projectiles seem to be good candidates for things thrown out by explosions now it's not like a smoking gun to say since it's going horizontally it couldn't have been caused by gravity because when something's falling there are things that are bouncing around knocking into each other there's things that perhaps could flex and so forth however to get these large pieces of material that are rejected horizontally it is very suggestive of explosions and that's the easiest explanation that seems reasonable by the  way the video that we're about to see is a recent one i did it's a remake of some earlier videos i did i've been using some new tools i have a program now called tracker which goes it's a