Anyone See 'The Ultimate Con?'...

[paulitician]

You gentleman know who it is right? He gives the concrete evidence by leading demo experts that show beams melting which can only occur with the use of special materials. Jet fuel burns quick at low temperatures where as the beams require the very high temps to melt. One of the buildings was proven to be demolished that day. Not the world trades of course. This gentleman has more evidence against this government it will blow your mind.

I do not chose to endorse him as it will probably result in my getting kicked off this site. It happened to me once before. Free speech my ass. Are you referring to the gentleman who has the initials A.J ?

He is the best and he does his homework and has concrete evidence about a great deal of stuff that is considered theory. I know in my mind the towers were an inside job. Obama wants martial law. And dozens of other plans. So it is proven.

It's Alex Jones. You only get kicked off GLP if you mention him. And the beams didn't "melt". They softened and lost their strength.

Which would mean the the buildings would have "collapsed" at a much slower rate of decent and not gone from stable to total global failure in seconds, and the lower parts of the massive buildings should have provided much more resistance then they did.
Take into account that a falling object would travel to the ground in 9.2 seconds, and the buildings totally collapsed just a few seconds longer then that.
The lower beams didn't weaken as there was no fire in the more robust parts of the buildings. The OCT is based on BS and highly improbable and unproven theories.

It would have been an uneven and much slower collapse. WTC 7 should have looked like the other WTC buildings that were located right beneath the Towers. All received much more damage and yet were left standing. The WTC 7 collapse is highly improbable.

 

[paulitician]

This is what large buildings usually look like after extensive damage. The Murrah Building and the other WTC buildings which were located right beneath the Towers...

 

[daws101]

Take a look at the Murrah Building after all the damage it received. And also take a look at other WTC buildings that were right below the Towers. All had extensive damage but were still left standing. Now take a look at WTC 7 which had far less damage than all of them...

WTC7 -- This is an Orange - YouTube

LOL,the bomb that destroyed the Murrah Building was OUTSIDE.
AND THE BLAST WAVE PUSHED THE BUILDING IN ON ITSELF.
WTC7 HAD NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND IF EXPLOSIVE.
WTC7 WAS A COLLAPSE DUE TO DAMAGE , the Murrah Building WAS MOSTLY VAPORIZED..

NIST doesn't say WTC 7 collapsed to due damage, but fire, and there is evidence of explosions. So is NIST wrong or not, which is it?

fire is damage ass clown! there is no credible evidence of of explosives or accelerants used at wtc7

"The NIST report found no evidence supporting conspiracy theories that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, the window breakage pattern and blast sounds that would have resulted from the use of explosives were not observed.[8] The suggestion that an incendiary material such as thermite was used instead of explosives was considered unlikely by NIST because of observations of the fire and the building's structural response to the fire, and because it is unlikely the necessary quantity of material could have been planted without discovery.."

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


any claims of explosives being used are specious and unprovable,

 

[paulitician]

LOL,the bomb that destroyed the Murrah Building was OUTSIDE.
AND THE BLAST WAVE PUSHED THE BUILDING IN ON ITSELF.
WTC7 HAD NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND IF EXPLOSIVE.
WTC7 WAS A COLLAPSE DUE TO DAMAGE , the Murrah Building WAS MOSTLY VAPORIZED..

NIST doesn't say WTC 7 collapsed to due damage, but fire, and there is evidence of explosions. So is NIST wrong or not, which is it?

fire is damage ass clown! there is no credible evidence of of explosives or accelerants used at wtc7

"The NIST report found no evidence supporting conspiracy theories that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, the window breakage pattern and blast sounds that would have resulted from the use of explosives were not observed.[8] The suggestion that an incendiary material such as thermite was used instead of explosives was considered unlikely by NIST because of observations of the fire and the building's structural response to the fire, and because it is unlikely the necessary quantity of material could have been planted without discovery.."

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


any claims of explosives being used are specious and unprovable,

Possibly unprovable now. I'll concede that one. But NIST never actually investigated the possibility of explosives being involved. They have admitted this in the past. They had their conclusion before they did any investigating. And that sadly sums up the whole 911 affair. It was just a rush to get to that "Nothing to see here folks. Now move along." Too many questions about 911 still unanswered. Unfortunately,we may never get those answers. Such an awful National Tragedy on so many levels.

 

[daws101]

NIST doesn't say WTC 7 collapsed to due damage, but fire, and there is evidence of explosions. So is NIST wrong or not, which is it?

fire is damage ass clown! there is no credible evidence of of explosives or accelerants used at wtc7

"The NIST report found no evidence supporting conspiracy theories that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, the window breakage pattern and blast sounds that would have resulted from the use of explosives were not observed.[8] The suggestion that an incendiary material such as thermite was used instead of explosives was considered unlikely by NIST because of observations of the fire and the building's structural response to the fire, and because it is unlikely the necessary quantity of material could have been planted without discovery.."

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


any claims of explosives being used are specious and unprovable,

Possibly unprovable now. I'll concede that one. But NIST never actually investigated the possibility of explosives being involved. They have admitted this in the past. They had their conclusion before they did any investigating. And that sadly sums up the whole 911 affair. It was just a rush to get that "Nothing to see here folks. Now move along." Too mnay questions about 911 still unanswered. Unfortunately,we may never get those answers. Such an awful National Tragedy on so many levels.

do you have trouble with the concept of evidence? there was no indication of explosive use SO there was no logical reason to waste time, manpower, and resources on it.
wtc 7 was an empty building the contained no information or articles that were critical to the operations of the companies housed there.


most importantly there were no deaths.
it was a minor event in the middle of tragedy.

 

[paulitician]

fire is damage ass clown! there is no credible evidence of of explosives or accelerants used at wtc7

"The NIST report found no evidence supporting conspiracy theories that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, the window breakage pattern and blast sounds that would have resulted from the use of explosives were not observed.[8] The suggestion that an incendiary material such as thermite was used instead of explosives was considered unlikely by NIST because of observations of the fire and the building's structural response to the fire, and because it is unlikely the necessary quantity of material could have been planted without discovery.."

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


any claims of explosives being used are specious and unprovable,

Possibly unprovable now. I'll concede that one. But NIST never actually investigated the possibility of explosives being involved. They have admitted this in the past. They had their conclusion before they did any investigating. And that sadly sums up the whole 911 affair. It was just a rush to get that "Nothing to see here folks. Now move along." Too mnay questions about 911 still unanswered. Unfortunately,we may never get those answers. Such an awful National Tragedy on so many levels.

do you have trouble with the concept of evidence? there was no indication of explosive use SO there was no logical reason to waste time, manpower, and resources on it.
wtc 7 was an empty building the contained no information or articles that were critical to the operations of the companies housed there.


most importantly there were no deaths.
it was a minor event in the middle of tragedy.

Well obviously we'll never get anywhere with this discussion. You see an Apple while i see an Orange...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk]WTC7 -- This is an Orange - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr. Jones]

LOL,the bomb that destroyed the Murrah Building was OUTSIDE.
AND THE BLAST WAVE PUSHED THE BUILDING IN ON ITSELF.
WTC7 HAD NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND IF EXPLOSIVE.
WTC7 WAS A COLLAPSE DUE TO DAMAGE , the Murrah Building WAS MOSTLY VAPORIZED..

NIST doesn't say WTC 7 collapsed to due damage, but fire, and there is evidence of explosions. So is NIST wrong or not, which is it?

fire is damage ass clown! there is no credible evidence of of explosives or accelerants used at wtc7

WTC 7 was a collapse caused by fire, according to NIST, and you could have said so if that is what you truly meant, you insinuated damage as in from the falling WTC tower, you lying POS.

"The NIST report found no evidence supporting conspiracy theories that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, the window breakage pattern and blast sounds that would have resulted from the use of explosives were not observed.[8] The suggestion that an incendiary material such as thermite was used instead of explosives was considered unlikely by NIST because of observations of the fire and the building's structural response to the fire, and because it is unlikely the necessary quantity of material could have been planted without discovery.."

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


any claims of explosives being used are specious and unprovable,

Any claims that 19 muslims and fire destroyed those buildings, has yet to be proven, NIST theories are based on BS junk science to fulfill a needed narrative of events that coincide with the
long planned wars in the middle east. But you still have your head up your ass, while believing incredible government contrived conspiracy theories, which is nothing new.

 

[paulitician]

NIST doesn't say WTC 7 collapsed to due damage, but fire, and there is evidence of explosions. So is NIST wrong or not, which is it?

WTC 7 was a collapse caused by fire, according to NIST, and you could have said so if that is what you truly meant, you insinuated damage as in from the falling WTC tower, you lying POS.

"The NIST report found no evidence supporting conspiracy theories that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, the window breakage pattern and blast sounds that would have resulted from the use of explosives were not observed.[8] The suggestion that an incendiary material such as thermite was used instead of explosives was considered unlikely by NIST because of observations of the fire and the building's structural response to the fire, and because it is unlikely the necessary quantity of material could have been planted without discovery.."

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


any claims of explosives being used are specious and unprovable,

Any claims that 19 muslims and fire destroyed those buildings, has yet to be proven, NIST theories are based on BS junk science to fulfill a needed narrative of events that coincide with the
long planned wars in the middle east. But you still have your head up your ass, while believing incredible government contrived conspiracy theories, which is nothing new.

Fire did not cause that perfectly symmetrical collapse. It's just not possible. Look at all the photos of the other seriously damaged buildings i posted earlier in this thread. They are what large buildings are supposed to look like after extensive damage.

 

[Mr. Jones]

WTC 7 was a collapse caused by fire, according to NIST, and you could have said so if that is what you truly meant, you insinuated damage as in from the falling WTC tower, you lying POS.

Any claims that 19 muslims and fire destroyed those buildings, has yet to be proven, NIST theories are based on BS junk science to fulfill a needed narrative of events that coincide with the
long planned wars in the middle east. But you still have your head up your ass, while believing incredible government contrived conspiracy theories, which is nothing new.

Fire did not cause that perfectly symmetrical collapse. It's just not possible. Look at all the photos of the other seriously damaged buildings i posted earlier in this thread. They are what large buildings are supposed to look like after extensive damage.

I think most people who deny evidence that counters the NIST reports, and the OCT are akin to those that denied evidence the Earth was round, and orbited around the Sun.
They engage in skeptopathy, an irrational belief that a phenomenon must be false merely because it is unusual.
The first thing people should do is think about how many times those in authority have deceived them and lied to them.
It's gotten to the point that people will not even trust their own eyes
and choose to believe whatever they are told by any government official, even though they know deep inside they are being lied to, because the truth is too horrible to fathom.

Skeptopathy is the irrational belief that a theory or a piece of evidence is false merely because it is unusual, goes against conventional wisdom, or is simply too difficult to imagine. Skeptopathy then involves an irrational unsupported belief that something is untrue. Skeptopathy involves not fact and scientific rigor but blind faith that an unpleasant notion is false.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) attempted to officially explain how WTC 7 fell. Their explanation is documented in the report entitled Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7.[2] This report states that WTC 7 fell solely due to the effects of ordinary office fires.

The most dumb-founding aspect of NIST’s theory is that it actually explains absolutely nothing about the WTC 7 collapse, from a purely scientific standpoint. The pronouncements contained within their report are completely unsupported by any facts or legitimate experiments. In fact, NIST’s own analysis actually refutes their own theory. The only experiment they performed supports this refutation. To understand this we need to examine their work under the microscope of falsifiability.

“If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted.”

oes the NIST theory pass the falsification test? Well, due to the law of conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics), the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) and the law of conservation of momentum, the NIST theory predicts that there can be no free fall at any time if WTC 7 fell solely due to the damage caused by the slow or non-simultaneous effects of fire. A slowly damaged steel-framed building will always have lower resisting structure to slow the rate of acceleration. Free fall however, requires negligible resisting structure. There is neither energy nor momentum available to both remove the considerable structure in the way and to accelerate downward at the rate of gravity. Energy and momentum must be conserved. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Now, think how fast a cast-iron frying pan’s handle heats up. This is entropy, the second law of thermodynamics in action. Slowly heated steel will result in dispersement of the heat throughout a skyscraper’s interconnected steel skeleton since heat always moves from the hotter region to the colder region. Heat does not move towards itself. It will only move away from itself, resulting in cooling. This dispersement will prevent major localized and simultaneous heat-related failures due to normal office fires.

By the notion of falsifiability, then, the fact that free fall occurred for at least 2.25 seconds[5] shows that the NIST theory has been completely refuted by this single observation of free fall alone. In fact, the only experiment NIST performed to validate their hypothesis, a 22-million dollar computer simulation of the WTC 7 fall, also shows no free fall period. NIST’s own experiments support the prediction that there will be no free fall period in a fire-initiated skyscraper collapse. So the NIST theory is obviously falsified or refuted. It is just plain wrong. Basic high school-level science concepts are telling us the NIST WTC 7 theory is false.

The much maligned competing theory to the NIST WTC 7 theory is the controlled demolition theory. This theory predicts free fall for eight stories is possible in a skyscraper collapse if all columns are cleanly cut on every floor for eight stories. Can explosive shaped charges cut support columns cleanly? Yes.[7] How about much quieter thermate cutter charges? Yes, as experiments from the engineer Jonathan Cole show.[8] The thermate controlled demolition theory also predicts that a plethora of iron-rich micro-spheres would be produced, as would pools of molten iron and eutectic formations causing intergranular melting of some of the WTC steel. Cole’s experiments confirm these predictions, as do observations obtained elsewhere. The USGS found such iron-rich spheres[9] as did a set of reports prepared for Deutshe Bank by the RJ LeeGroup[10]. Several highly credible eyewitnesses report seeing pools of molten metal.[11] Eutectic formations causing intergranular melting were found on WTC 7 steel.[12]

So we have two theories of the WTC 7 collapse. One theory, the official NIST theory, is completely refuted. It does not explain a single observation. It predicts observations that do not occur. This theory is unscientific in every conceivable sense of the word. The other theory, the controlled demolition theory, appears to explain all known facts of the WTC 7 collapse and all experiments conducted thus far support its predictions.

Why do presumably rational intelligent scientists and otherwise critical thinkers reject science and fact when the subject area is too uncomfortable? The answer is skeptopathy, pathological skepticism.
Despite privately acknowledging the scientific truth, they will pretend that a disturbing hypothesis is false in order to protect or further their funding, careers, or reputation. (or their very lives)

9/11 Skeptopathy: Pathological Skepticism In Support of the Falsified Official Story | Foreign Policy Journal

 

[paulitician]

WTC 7 was a collapse caused by fire, according to NIST, and you could have said so if that is what you truly meant, you insinuated damage as in from the falling WTC tower, you lying POS.

Any claims that 19 muslims and fire destroyed those buildings, has yet to be proven, NIST theories are based on BS junk science to fulfill a needed narrative of events that coincide with the
long planned wars in the middle east. But you still have your head up your ass, while believing incredible government contrived conspiracy theories, which is nothing new.

Fire did not cause that perfectly symmetrical collapse. It's just not possible. Look at all the photos of the other seriously damaged buildings i posted earlier in this thread. They are what large buildings are supposed to look like after extensive damage.

I think most people who deny evidence that counters the NIST reports, and the OCT are akin to those that denied evidence the Earth was round, and orbited around the Sun.
They engage in skeptopathy, an irrational belief that a phenomenon must be false merely because it is unusual.
The first thing people should do is think about how many times those in authority have deceived them and lied to them.
It's gotten to the point that people will not even trust their own eyes
and choose to believe whatever they are told by any government official, even though they know deep inside they are being lied to, because the truth is too horrible to fathom.

Skeptopathy is the irrational belief that a theory or a piece of evidence is false merely because it is unusual, goes against conventional wisdom, or is simply too difficult to imagine. Skeptopathy then involves an irrational unsupported belief that something is untrue. Skeptopathy involves not fact and scientific rigor but blind faith that an unpleasant notion is false.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) attempted to officially explain how WTC 7 fell. Their explanation is documented in the report entitled Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7.[2] This report states that WTC 7 fell solely due to the effects of ordinary office fires.

The most dumb-founding aspect of NIST’s theory is that it actually explains absolutely nothing about the WTC 7 collapse, from a purely scientific standpoint. The pronouncements contained within their report are completely unsupported by any facts or legitimate experiments. In fact, NIST’s own analysis actually refutes their own theory. The only experiment they performed supports this refutation. To understand this we need to examine their work under the microscope of falsifiability.

“If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted.”

oes the NIST theory pass the falsification test? Well, due to the law of conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics), the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) and the law of conservation of momentum, the NIST theory predicts that there can be no free fall at any time if WTC 7 fell solely due to the damage caused by the slow or non-simultaneous effects of fire. A slowly damaged steel-framed building will always have lower resisting structure to slow the rate of acceleration. Free fall however, requires negligible resisting structure. There is neither energy nor momentum available to both remove the considerable structure in the way and to accelerate downward at the rate of gravity. Energy and momentum must be conserved. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Now, think how fast a cast-iron frying pan’s handle heats up. This is entropy, the second law of thermodynamics in action. Slowly heated steel will result in dispersement of the heat throughout a skyscraper’s interconnected steel skeleton since heat always moves from the hotter region to the colder region. Heat does not move towards itself. It will only move away from itself, resulting in cooling. This dispersement will prevent major localized and simultaneous heat-related failures due to normal office fires.

By the notion of falsifiability, then, the fact that free fall occurred for at least 2.25 seconds[5] shows that the NIST theory has been completely refuted by this single observation of free fall alone. In fact, the only experiment NIST performed to validate their hypothesis, a 22-million dollar computer simulation of the WTC 7 fall, also shows no free fall period. NIST’s own experiments support the prediction that there will be no free fall period in a fire-initiated skyscraper collapse. So the NIST theory is obviously falsified or refuted. It is just plain wrong. Basic high school-level science concepts are telling us the NIST WTC 7 theory is false.

The much maligned competing theory to the NIST WTC 7 theory is the controlled demolition theory. This theory predicts free fall for eight stories is possible in a skyscraper collapse if all columns are cleanly cut on every floor for eight stories. Can explosive shaped charges cut support columns cleanly? Yes.[7] How about much quieter thermate cutter charges? Yes, as experiments from the engineer Jonathan Cole show.[8] The thermate controlled demolition theory also predicts that a plethora of iron-rich micro-spheres would be produced, as would pools of molten iron and eutectic formations causing intergranular melting of some of the WTC steel. Cole’s experiments confirm these predictions, as do observations obtained elsewhere. The USGS found such iron-rich spheres[9] as did a set of reports prepared for Deutshe Bank by the RJ LeeGroup[10]. Several highly credible eyewitnesses report seeing pools of molten metal.[11] Eutectic formations causing intergranular melting were found on WTC 7 steel.[12]

So we have two theories of the WTC 7 collapse. One theory, the official NIST theory, is completely refuted. It does not explain a single observation. It predicts observations that do not occur. This theory is unscientific in every conceivable sense of the word. The other theory, the controlled demolition theory, appears to explain all known facts of the WTC 7 collapse and all experiments conducted thus far support its predictions.

Why do presumably rational intelligent scientists and otherwise critical thinkers reject science and fact when the subject area is too uncomfortable? The answer is skeptopathy, pathological skepticism.
Despite privately acknowledging the scientific truth, they will pretend that a disturbing hypothesis is false in order to protect or further their funding, careers, or reputation. (or their very lives)

9/11 Skeptopathy: Pathological Skepticism In Support of the Falsified Official Story | Foreign Policy Journal

It's stubborn denial for many. It upsets their learned & perceived order of things,so they decide to just live in denial. It is psychological. Ironically,these people are the first ones to attack and label everyone else "Crazy." I will always believe our Government lied to us about 911. WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. And if they lied about WTC 7,their whole story on 911 is suspect. I don't know for sure why they demolished WTC 7. That i admit. But it was demolished. Thanks for your very informative and articulate reply.

 

[Mr. Jones]

9/11: A Conspiracy Theory-
Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.
This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and mobile production facilities and the rescue of Jessica Lynch.

If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.

This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, SEC, MSM, White House, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission. Because Ignorance is Strength.

9/11: A Conspiracy Theory «

 

[paulitician]

9/11: A Conspiracy Theory-
Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.
This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and mobile production facilities and the rescue of Jessica Lynch.

If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.

This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, SEC, MSM, White House, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission. Because Ignorance is Strength.

9/11: A Conspiracy Theory «

Sadly that does sum things up. They have to marginalize anyone who questions them. Ridicule and accusations of being 'Un-Patriotic' are key tools in marginalization. Just look at most on this board. Their ridicule and anger gets very heated. But that's all they know i guess. It's a well-trained and learned knee-jerk response for them. So i can't get too angry with them. That's just a waste of time. Anyway,thanks for nailing things so Spot-On. I appreciate it and Happy New Year.

 

[Montrovant]

I think most people who deny evidence that counters the NIST reports, and the OCT are akin to those that denied evidence the Earth was round, and orbited around the Sun.
They engage in skeptopathy, an irrational belief that a phenomenon must be false merely because it is unusual.
The first thing people should do is think about how many times those in authority have deceived them and lied to them.
It's gotten to the point that people will not even trust their own eyes
and choose to believe whatever they are told by any government official, even though they know deep inside they are being lied to, because the truth is too horrible to fathom.

Skeptopathy is the irrational belief that a theory or a piece of evidence is false merely because it is unusual, goes against conventional wisdom, or is simply too difficult to imagine. Skeptopathy then involves an irrational unsupported belief that something is untrue. Skeptopathy involves not fact and scientific rigor but blind faith that an unpleasant notion is false.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) attempted to officially explain how WTC 7 fell. Their explanation is documented in the report entitled Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7.[2] This report states that WTC 7 fell solely due to the effects of ordinary office fires.

The most dumb-founding aspect of NIST’s theory is that it actually explains absolutely nothing about the WTC 7 collapse, from a purely scientific standpoint. The pronouncements contained within their report are completely unsupported by any facts or legitimate experiments. In fact, NIST’s own analysis actually refutes their own theory. The only experiment they performed supports this refutation. To understand this we need to examine their work under the microscope of falsifiability.

“If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted.”

oes the NIST theory pass the falsification test? Well, due to the law of conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics), the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) and the law of conservation of momentum, the NIST theory predicts that there can be no free fall at any time if WTC 7 fell solely due to the damage caused by the slow or non-simultaneous effects of fire. A slowly damaged steel-framed building will always have lower resisting structure to slow the rate of acceleration. Free fall however, requires negligible resisting structure. There is neither energy nor momentum available to both remove the considerable structure in the way and to accelerate downward at the rate of gravity. Energy and momentum must be conserved. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Now, think how fast a cast-iron frying pan’s handle heats up. This is entropy, the second law of thermodynamics in action. Slowly heated steel will result in dispersement of the heat throughout a skyscraper’s interconnected steel skeleton since heat always moves from the hotter region to the colder region. Heat does not move towards itself. It will only move away from itself, resulting in cooling. This dispersement will prevent major localized and simultaneous heat-related failures due to normal office fires.

By the notion of falsifiability, then, the fact that free fall occurred for at least 2.25 seconds[5] shows that the NIST theory has been completely refuted by this single observation of free fall alone. In fact, the only experiment NIST performed to validate their hypothesis, a 22-million dollar computer simulation of the WTC 7 fall, also shows no free fall period. NIST’s own experiments support the prediction that there will be no free fall period in a fire-initiated skyscraper collapse. So the NIST theory is obviously falsified or refuted. It is just plain wrong. Basic high school-level science concepts are telling us the NIST WTC 7 theory is false.

The much maligned competing theory to the NIST WTC 7 theory is the controlled demolition theory. This theory predicts free fall for eight stories is possible in a skyscraper collapse if all columns are cleanly cut on every floor for eight stories. Can explosive shaped charges cut support columns cleanly? Yes.[7] How about much quieter thermate cutter charges? Yes, as experiments from the engineer Jonathan Cole show.[8] The thermate controlled demolition theory also predicts that a plethora of iron-rich micro-spheres would be produced, as would pools of molten iron and eutectic formations causing intergranular melting of some of the WTC steel. Cole’s experiments confirm these predictions, as do observations obtained elsewhere. The USGS found such iron-rich spheres[9] as did a set of reports prepared for Deutshe Bank by the RJ LeeGroup[10]. Several highly credible eyewitnesses report seeing pools of molten metal.[11] Eutectic formations causing intergranular melting were found on WTC 7 steel.[12]

So we have two theories of the WTC 7 collapse. One theory, the official NIST theory, is completely refuted. It does not explain a single observation. It predicts observations that do not occur. This theory is unscientific in every conceivable sense of the word. The other theory, the controlled demolition theory, appears to explain all known facts of the WTC 7 collapse and all experiments conducted thus far support its predictions.

Why do presumably rational intelligent scientists and otherwise critical thinkers reject science and fact when the subject area is too uncomfortable? The answer is skeptopathy, pathological skepticism.
Despite privately acknowledging the scientific truth, they will pretend that a disturbing hypothesis is false in order to protect or further their funding, careers, or reputation. (or their very lives)

9/11 Skeptopathy: Pathological Skepticism In Support of the Falsified Official Story | Foreign Policy Journal

Couldn't that also be an explanation for the argument that WTC 7 must have been a controlled demolition? The building collapsing as it did is so unusual, it must not be true, instead it was controlled.

 

[paulitician]

No narration makes this movie better than most. It's definitely worth checking out. Enjoy.

 

[Rozman]

There is nothing here that would interest me.
I would rather use my computer time watching
Hip Hop videos....

Mann that Nicki Minaj has some BUTT

 

[Rozman]

All these crazy ass theories.
Radio controlled missiles that look like planes hit the towers.
Israeli Mossad agents seen near the area.
The hijackers spotted around the country after 9-11
Thermal explosives,controlled demolition.

Of course no proof what so ever.

 

[paulitician]

All these crazy ass theories.
Radio controlled missiles that look like planes hit the towers.
Israeli Mossad agents seen near the area.
The hijackers spotted around the country after 9-11
Thermal explosives,controlled demolition.

Of course no proof what so ever.

Did you really see this movie?

 

[Rozman]

All these crazy ass theories.
Radio controlled missiles that look like planes hit the towers.
Israeli Mossad agents seen near the area.
The hijackers spotted around the country after 9-11
Thermal explosives,controlled demolition.

Of course no proof what so ever.

Did you really see this movie?

I'm commenting on the conspiracy whack jobs.
All the crap they have thrown out there.
I'm not wasting any time on conspiracy theories.

When someone with credentials pipes up and says
something that makes sense I will look at it then.
I have spent my whole life living in the NYC area.
I lived that day and know what I saw with my own eyes.

 

[paulitician]

All these crazy ass theories.
Radio controlled missiles that look like planes hit the towers.
Israeli Mossad agents seen near the area.
The hijackers spotted around the country after 9-11
Thermal explosives,controlled demolition.

Of course no proof what so ever.

Did you really see this movie?

I'm commenting on the conspiracy whack jobs.
All the crap they have thrown out there.
I'm not wasting any time on conspiracy theories.

When someone with credentials pipes up and says
something that makes sense I will look at it then.
I have spent my whole life living in the NYC area.
I lived that day and know what I saw with my own eyes.

Fair enough. I can only give my opinion on the movie. It's of course your call on whether or not you want to watch it. Take care.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I think most people who deny evidence that counters the NIST reports, and the OCT are akin to those that denied evidence the Earth was round, and orbited around the Sun.
They engage in skeptopathy, an irrational belief that a phenomenon must be false merely because it is unusual.
The first thing people should do is think about how many times those in authority have deceived them and lied to them.
It's gotten to the point that people will not even trust their own eyes
and choose to believe whatever they are told by any government official, even though they know deep inside they are being lied to, because the truth is too horrible to fathom.

Skeptopathy is the irrational belief that a theory or a piece of evidence is false merely because it is unusual, goes against conventional wisdom, or is simply too difficult to imagine. Skeptopathy then involves an irrational unsupported belief that something is untrue. Skeptopathy involves not fact and scientific rigor but blind faith that an unpleasant notion is false.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) attempted to officially explain how WTC 7 fell. Their explanation is documented in the report entitled Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7.[2] This report states that WTC 7 fell solely due to the effects of ordinary office fires.

The most dumb-founding aspect of NIST’s theory is that it actually explains absolutely nothing about the WTC 7 collapse, from a purely scientific standpoint. The pronouncements contained within their report are completely unsupported by any facts or legitimate experiments. In fact, NIST’s own analysis actually refutes their own theory. The only experiment they performed supports this refutation. To understand this we need to examine their work under the microscope of falsifiability.

“If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted.”

oes the NIST theory pass the falsification test? Well, due to the law of conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics), the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) and the law of conservation of momentum, the NIST theory predicts that there can be no free fall at any time if WTC 7 fell solely due to the damage caused by the slow or non-simultaneous effects of fire. A slowly damaged steel-framed building will always have lower resisting structure to slow the rate of acceleration. Free fall however, requires negligible resisting structure. There is neither energy nor momentum available to both remove the considerable structure in the way and to accelerate downward at the rate of gravity. Energy and momentum must be conserved. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Now, think how fast a cast-iron frying pan’s handle heats up. This is entropy, the second law of thermodynamics in action. Slowly heated steel will result in dispersement of the heat throughout a skyscraper’s interconnected steel skeleton since heat always moves from the hotter region to the colder region. Heat does not move towards itself. It will only move away from itself, resulting in cooling. This dispersement will prevent major localized and simultaneous heat-related failures due to normal office fires.

By the notion of falsifiability, then, the fact that free fall occurred for at least 2.25 seconds[5] shows that the NIST theory has been completely refuted by this single observation of free fall alone. In fact, the only experiment NIST performed to validate their hypothesis, a 22-million dollar computer simulation of the WTC 7 fall, also shows no free fall period. NIST’s own experiments support the prediction that there will be no free fall period in a fire-initiated skyscraper collapse. So the NIST theory is obviously falsified or refuted. It is just plain wrong. Basic high school-level science concepts are telling us the NIST WTC 7 theory is false.

The much maligned competing theory to the NIST WTC 7 theory is the controlled demolition theory. This theory predicts free fall for eight stories is possible in a skyscraper collapse if all columns are cleanly cut on every floor for eight stories. Can explosive shaped charges cut support columns cleanly? Yes.[7] How about much quieter thermate cutter charges? Yes, as experiments from the engineer Jonathan Cole show.[8] The thermate controlled demolition theory also predicts that a plethora of iron-rich micro-spheres would be produced, as would pools of molten iron and eutectic formations causing intergranular melting of some of the WTC steel. Cole’s experiments confirm these predictions, as do observations obtained elsewhere. The USGS found such iron-rich spheres[9] as did a set of reports prepared for Deutshe Bank by the RJ LeeGroup[10]. Several highly credible eyewitnesses report seeing pools of molten metal.[11] Eutectic formations causing intergranular melting were found on WTC 7 steel.[12]

So we have two theories of the WTC 7 collapse. One theory, the official NIST theory, is completely refuted. It does not explain a single observation. It predicts observations that do not occur. This theory is unscientific in every conceivable sense of the word. The other theory, the controlled demolition theory, appears to explain all known facts of the WTC 7 collapse and all experiments conducted thus far support its predictions.

Why do presumably rational intelligent scientists and otherwise critical thinkers reject science and fact when the subject area is too uncomfortable? The answer is skeptopathy, pathological skepticism.
Despite privately acknowledging the scientific truth, they will pretend that a disturbing hypothesis is false in order to protect or further their funding, careers, or reputation. (or their very lives)

9/11 Skeptopathy: Pathological Skepticism In Support of the Falsified Official Story | Foreign Policy Journal

Couldn't that also be an explanation for the argument that WTC 7 must have been a controlled demolition? The building collapsing as it did is so unusual, it must not be true, instead it was controlled.

It's not unusual when the theory of a CD is taken into consideration, in fact it makes more sense then the crap NIST tries to make intelligent people believe.