Published on Saturday, 16 August 2014 17:44
In 2002, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was tasked by the US Government with "determin[ing] why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed." After years of work, the final reports were released (in 2005 and 2008 respectively) with the conclusion that all three had collapsed primarily due to fire. But just how "meticulous, exhaustive, and very realistic" was this research? Had it really answered all the questions and provided a trustworthy explanation that supported the official narrative of 9/11?
This week we welcome to the programme once again Kevin Ryan, co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies and author of the book Another Nineteen, who joins us to share with us his assessment of the NIST reports, and why he believes them to be "false and unscientific."
(Download Podcast HQ 128 kbps)
[National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, 9/11, Twin Towers, WTC 1, North Tower, WTC 2, South Tower, WTC 7, Building 7, Column 79, FEMA, Pancake Theory, Diesel Fuel Fire Hypothesis, Zdenfk P. Bažant, Mathieu Verdure, fireproofing, paint deformation test, sagging, computer modelling, catenary action, office fires, differential linear thermal expansion, thermite, nanothermite, red/gray chips, molten steel, Steven E. Jones, Niels Harrit, Ron Brookman, jeopardize public safety, David Coburn, Popular Mechanics, Shyam Sunder, High Rise Safety Initiative]