PDA

View Full Version : Dr. Shyam Sunder interview on No Lies Radio


alienentity
13th August 2009, 01:06 PM
This interview came up on another thread. I thought it was worthy of further discussion, since the interviewer, Allan Rees, poses a large number of truther distortions and myths to Mr. Sunder, who responds in depth.

It was bill smith who first referenced the interview, and notably misquoted Dr. Sunder, saying 'Maybe I have audio of Shyam Sunder, leader of the NIST investigtion into the collapse of WTC7 saying that WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition.'

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4993581#post4993581

It turns out that Dr. Sunder was referencing the suggestion that it had collapsed in a manner similar to a controlled demolition:

'Third, we wanted to look at hypothetical blast events because there was some suggestion - we had not seen any evidence of it - that the manner in which tower 7, building 7 seemed to collapse was similar in some features to a controlled demolition.'

Clearly Dr. Sunder refers to the suggestion, but distances himself from it. Assuming 'we' refers to the investigating persons from NIST, including Dr. Sunder, it must be stated that this was never Dr. Sunder's stated opinion.

The entire interview from Thursday aug 23, 2008 with
No Lies Radio host Allan Rees and Dr. Sunder is available here:

http://noliesradio.org/archives/Nist%20Dr%20Sunder%20Interview_080821_widmusic-web.mp3

I've edited the ad and posted it on my youtube channel now. Should be viewable in a few minutes.

dymXzqDFWTk


One further note: Any person who thinks that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is taking a reasonable and scientific approach to questions about 9/11 must account for some of the blatant lies and distortions coming from that organization.

Here are the main offenders, which appear in advertisements on radio heard here (http://cdn2.libsyn.com/visibility911/visibility911_dr_harrit.mp3?nvb=20090812223520&nva=20090813224520&t=0f2cae5172fb20838ed14), for example.

1) The false claim that WTC7 'came down in just 6.5 seconds at near freefall speed'. This ignores the actual time of over 14 seconds that the building collapse took.

2) 'in the exact manner of a classic controlled demolition'. This is a false statement. There is no explosive CD in history that didn't involve very loud, noticeable explosions just seconds prior to the collapse.

3) The towers are 'missing 90,000 tons of concrete', 'actually pulverized to a fine dust...landing all over Manhattan'. In fact, the composition of the dust is not primarily concrete - the statement is unsupported by evidence.

4) 'Why does the pulverized concrete, and the molten iron, and the ends of the steel beams carry the chemical signature of thermite, a high tech incendiary used by the military to cut thru steel like a hot knife thru butter?
This is actually documented by FEMA and left out of the final report by NIST.'

This paragraph is highly misleading and speculative. For example, at no time did FEMA find evidence of thermite. And is there any real proof of pools of molten iron?

ElMondoHummus
13th August 2009, 01:34 PM
It was bill smith who first referenced the interview, and notably misquoted Dr. Sunder, saying 'Maybe I have audio of Shyam Sunder, leader of the NIST investigtion into the collapse of WTC7 saying that WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition.'

Bill Smith misrepresent something??? Nooooooo! :eek:

:rolleyes:

twinstead
13th August 2009, 01:37 PM
Yea. I'm totally flabberghasted.

alienentity
13th August 2009, 02:07 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that if you want your comments to appear automatically on my videos, just add me as a friend. That way I don't have to approve them.

nicepants
13th August 2009, 09:33 PM
LOL who is this host?

"The collapse....according to a lot of people....showed all of the signs of a controlled demolition"

Oh well as long as a lot of people say so.....:covereyes

I love that the host also wanted to know why nist hadn't interviwed Silverstein about the "pull-it" comment. The guy was obviously pretty clueless.

Sunder makes a great point that the things the truther suggesting do not add up to a theory, they only add up to speculation.

fourtoe
14th August 2009, 12:08 AM
One further note: Any person who thinks that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is taking a reasonable and scientific approach to questions about 9/11 must account for some of the blatant lies and distortions coming from that organization.

Here are the main offenders, which appear in advertisements on radio heard here (http://cdn2.libsyn.com/visibility911/visibility911_dr_harrit.mp3?nvb=20090812223520&nva=20090813224520&t=0f2cae5172fb20838ed14), for example.

1) The false claim that WTC7 'came down in just 6.5 seconds at near freefall speed'. This ignores the actual time of over 14 seconds that the building collapse took.

2) 'in the exact manner of a classic controlled demolition'. This is a false statement. There is no explosive CD in history that didn't involve very loud, noticeable explosions just seconds prior to the collapse.

3) The towers are 'missing 90,000 tons of concrete', 'actually pulverized to a fine dust...landing all over Manhattan'. In fact, the composition of the dust is not primarily concrete - the statement is unsupported by evidence.

4) 'Why does the pulverized concrete, and the molten iron, and the ends of the steel beams carry the chemical signature of thermite, a high tech incendiary used by the military to cut thru steel like a hot knife thru butter?
This is actually documented by FEMA and left out of the final report by NIST.'

This paragraph is highly misleading and speculative. For example, at no time did FEMA find evidence of thermite. And is there any real proof of pools of molten iron?


omg ALL of this was debunked in the Hardfire debates between Gravy and Gage.

The best part was the Steven Jones quote Gravy used when talking about the buildings turning to a fine powder.

bio
14th August 2009, 01:35 AM
omg ALL of this was debunked in the Hardfire debates between Gravy and Gage.

The best part was the Steven Jones quote Gravy used when talking about the buildings turning to a fine powder.

you mean debunking like "there are no witness-acounts of explosions because nobody saw a bomb"? :D

UNLoVedRebel
14th August 2009, 01:38 AM
you mean debunking like "there are no witness-acounts of explosions because nobody saw a bomb"? :D

Nope. Because no one said that. Think more along the lines of this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4938773#post4938773).

dtugg
14th August 2009, 01:40 AM
you mean debunking like "there are no witness-acounts of explosions because nobody saw a bomb"? :D

Stop lying. Nobody said there are no witnesses to explosions (or sounds similar to explosions).

bio
14th August 2009, 01:48 AM
Stop lying. Nobody said there are no witnesses to explosions (or sounds similar to explosions).

can you speak with your debunker-friend UNLoVedRebel about that? See his post :D

UNLoVedRebel
14th August 2009, 01:51 AM
can you speak with your debunker-friend UNLoVedRebel about that? See his post :D

I know you're English is bad, but I pretty much said the same thing as dtugg.:D

When you're ready please respond to this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4938773#post4938773) post

bio
14th August 2009, 02:41 AM
Stop lying. Nobody said there are no witnesses to explosions (or sounds similar to explosions).

good - then are the 753 engineers and architects for 9/11 truth right.

Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
(http://www.ae911truth.net)

the standard of "debunking" here is frightening. :)

Dave Rogers
14th August 2009, 02:46 AM
good - then are the 753 engineers and architects for 9/11 truth right.

Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
(http://www.ae911truth.net)

the standard of "debunking" here is frightening. :)

Congratulations on proving something that was never in dispute. We are all aware that sounds sufficiently similar to explosions to be identified as explosions were heard at various times and places on 9/11. We are equally aware that no sound sufficiently loud to be the result of demolition charges was heard at a time and place sufficently close to the time and place of collapse initiation for explosive demolition to have occurred. Therefore, the collapse was not initiated by explosives.

Dave

funk de fino
14th August 2009, 03:01 AM
good - then are the 753 engineers and architects for 9/11 truth right.

Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
(http://www.ae911truth.net)

the standard of "debunking" here is frightening. :)

Why do you link to a page of lies made by liars? It makes you look as dishonest as them.

T.A.M.
14th August 2009, 04:37 AM
you mean debunking like "there are no witness-acounts of explosions because nobody saw a bomb"? :D

There were many witnesses who heard what they described as "explosions". Absolutely.

Yet despite numerous people, including myself, explaining to you that lots of things besides "explosives" can cause "explosions", and that lots of noises may be described as "explosions" despite not arising from an explosive detonation, you still persist with this stupid, ignorant, ridiculous line?

Why is that bio? Why despite having all this explained to you, do you persist? Willful ignorance? Stupidity? Both?

TAM:)

tsig
14th August 2009, 05:01 AM
good - then are the 753 engineers and architects for 9/11 truth right.

Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
(http://www.ae911truth.net)

the standard of "debunking" here is frightening. :)

Should they have collapsed in total silence?

ElMondoHummus
14th August 2009, 05:06 AM
good - then are the 753 engineers and architects for 9/11 truth right.

Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
(http://www.ae911truth.net)

the standard of "debunking" here is frightening. :)

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard
http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/quote_abuse.html

twinstead
14th August 2009, 05:19 AM
I don't think bio should be complaining about "standards" anywhere.