Video Analysis of NIST’s Claim of a 5.4 s Collapse Time Over 18 Stories for WTC 7

by Jul 11, 2011Liberty & Economy2 comments

NIST's report on the collapse of WTC 7 is scientific fraud.


NIST, in its draft report for public comment, initially denied that WTC 7 collapsed at the acceleration of gravity with the claim that an overall collapse time of 5.4 seconds was 40 percent longer than a free-fall time of 3.9 seconds for the first 18 stories. After being confronted with analysis of the collapse clearly demonstrating that free-fall had occurred, NIST acknowledged this fact in its final report, yet still maintained that the overall collapse time was 5.4 seconds. NIST explained in the final report that this measurement was obtained by examining a single pixel of a video towards the center of the roofline. It is argued in this paper that NIST’s chosen methodology for determining the point in time representing the onset of global collapse is not merely fallacious, but indicative of a willful and deliberate effort to deceive the public and obfuscate the implications of free-fall through scientific fraud.

Download the Full Paper (PDF)

Did you find value in this content? If so and you have the means, please consider supporting my independent journalism.

About Jeremy R. Hammond

About Jeremy R. Hammond

I am an independent journalist, political analyst, publisher and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, book author, and writing coach.

My writings empower readers with the knowledge they need to see through state propaganda intended to manufacture their consent for criminal government policies.

By recognizing when we are being lied to and why, we can fight effectively for liberty, peace, and justice, in order to create a better world for ourselves, our children, and future generations of humanity.

Please join my growing community of readers!


Download my free report 5 Horrifying Facts about the FDA Vaccine Approval Process.

Download my free report 5 Horrifying Facts about the FDA Vaccine Approval Process.

My Books

Related Articles


  1. David Chandler

    Hi Jeremy,
    I am trying to quote your paper in my talk at the Toronto Hearings, but your link to appears dead. Is the journal defunct? Is this the new permanent site for the article?
    –David Chandler


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This