Reading through NIST’s papers, watching their simulations, and studying their own research…… NIST practically debunk themselves. Here are well sourced links from professionals that have debunked NIST and have proven beyond doubt that NIST’s findings were unscientific and fraudulent.


NIST’s WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud


“NIST has made many false written and oral statements about the collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 — statements that have now caused 2,300 architects and engineers to question the government investigator’s credibility and veracity. One of its most implausible claims is that a high-rise steel structure in New York City was destroyed by fire alone.”
PART 1: NIST andPopular Mechanics Fabricate Myth About WTC 7’s “Scooped-Out” 10 Stories
PART 2: NIST’s Fictitious Gouge Launches Design Flaw Myth and Collapse Initiation Theory
PART 3: Trusses & Tanks—Popular Mechanics Helps NIST Create More Myths
PART 4: Independent Analysis Disproves NIST’s New Thermal Expansion Hypothesis.
PART 5: How Skyscrapers Are Really Imploded

“…all in all, the official version of the failure of WTC 7 does not stand up to even the most elementary scrutiny. Yet with breathtaking chutzpah, NIST and the defenders of its theory continue to ask us all, paraphrasing a Chico Marx line in the movie Duck Soup, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?”
25 Points of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

“In recent years, various members of the AE911Truth team have been working on a white paper titled “Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports.” Last month they finally completed the document. Its 25 concise points offer the most convincing proof that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the September 11, 2001, destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings were unscientific and fraudulent.”
How NIST Avoided a Real Analysis of the Physical Evidence of WTC Steel




David Chandler’s – WTC7 NIST Finally Admits Freefall FULL
North Tower Exploding by David Chandler


Part 3 Gage’s Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal (Not Debunked):
Tall Steel Frame Building Fire Collapses


Look at Chris Mohr’s example at the 2:00 minute mark. “had a fast, all at once, almost symmetrical collapse, pretty much into it’s own footprint.”

Can someone tell me what building Chris is talking about?

2/25/11 Answers from NIST to Questions by Chris Mohr, Journalist
Richard Gage, AIA – at the office of NIST


The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites Kevin R. Ryan, 7-02-08
The NIST WTC 7 Report is False (Kevin Ryan)
9/11 Skepticism: NIST floor test

New Standard of Deception ~ NIST & FEMA WTC Report Flaws Exposed by Kevin Ryan
Kevin Ryan’s ‘Demolition Access …’
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports?
Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports?
Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False


9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert (Jon Cole)
9/11 Incontrovertible Proof the Government is Lying
NIST Lies: Final Report on World Trade Center Building Seven
NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed! (Jeremy Rys)
NIST, ARA Error Speaks Volumes
‘Evidence proves 9/11 story is a lie’ Buildings Were Taken
Down by Controlled Demolition
Fast and Furious – WTC7

Fast and Furious – The Twin Towers
WTC 7 NIST Model Reality Check
A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse – Michael Fullerton

A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse

Did NIST Fraudulently Omit A Key Component Related to
Collapse Theory From WTC Building 7 Report?



Top 10 reasons why the NIST report is absurd:

#10. Their theory is that “widely-dislodged fireproofing” was the primary reason the towers collapsed.

“The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.”

#9. This theory ignores the fact that no steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire in history.

“This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires”. – Shyam Sunder (NIST)

#8. They disproved their own “widely-dislodged fireproofing” theory with a shotgun experiment.

“It took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation… there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been… [like] thousands of shotgun blasts [to cover] the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel.”

In other words, the shotgun blasts only removed the fireproofing where they were struck with the shotgun blast. Their own photos clearly show that the shotgun blasts removed little fireproofing, disproving their theory.

#7. They ignore massive eyewitness testimony.

Eyewitness testimony:

Not only did NIST ignore witness testimony. NIST failed to test the dust for explosives or exotic accelerants as per NFPA 921 guidelines. – Erik Lawyer – Press Conference

#6. Their theory ignores a foundational law of physics.

“The measurements have indicated that Tower one collapsed in about 11 seconds and Tower two collapsed in about 9 seconds…..this is essentially the rate at which free fall would happen.” – Shyam Sunder NIST

David Chandler’s – WTC7 NIST Finally Admits Freefall FULL

#5. Their steel tests contradicted their own theory and showed that the towers should not have collapsed.

NIST’s own tests and experiments they did on structural steel similar to that used in the towers failed to weaken or melt steel trusses or columns. Their OWN tests failed experiment.

9/11 Skepticism: NIST floor test

#4. They “proved” their theory with computer models that they refuse to release.

“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.”
Parker, Dave. “WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation,” New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.

NIST refuses to release all the data used in their computer simulations claiming it would “jeopardize public safety.”

#3. Their computer simulations used exaggerated data.

“The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases… were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events.”
NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.

#2. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report explains (only in a footnote!), that their theory is a pre-collapse theory—they do not attempt to explain the “structural behavior of the tower” after the collapse began!

“The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although [the investigation] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.

NIST’s job was to only come up with a plausible theory that lead up to the initiation of collapse. NIST was not concerned how the top 20 floors of the tower was able to completely obliterated and destroy the untouched, undamaged 90 floors underneath.

#1. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report can’t find the space to discuss molten and evaporated steel; outrageously claiming that it was “irrelevant to the investigation”!

“The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.”

NIST is trying to say that the molten steel was created after the buildings collapse. How do they know that? If so, why isn’t it mentioned in a 10, 000 page report to show this? This statement defies belief.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Go to Top