Anyone See 'The Ultimate Con?'...

[daws101]

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.

so you claiming you're intelligent...how long have you been having these delusions?
posting walls of bullshit is just that, walls of bullshit

and of course it's a twoofer site,,,so by it's very nature it's invalid.

 

[paulitician]

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.

so you claiming you're intelligent...how long have you been having these delusions?
posting walls of bullshit is just that, walls of bullshit

and of course it's a twoofer site,,,so by it's very nature it's invalid.

Yeah but you still haven't watched this movie. So you really can't comment on it. Just watch the movie and then come back to discuss. It's not too hard and it's free. So give it a shot.

 

[daws101]

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.

so you claiming you're intelligent...how long have you been having these delusions?
posting walls of bullshit is just that, walls of bullshit

and of course it's a twoofer site,,,so by it's very nature it's invalid.

Yeah but you still haven't watched this movie. So you really can't comment on it. Just watch the movie and then come back to discuss. It's not too hard and it's free. So give it a shot.

I have seen the film and all the other ones, the answer remains the same:false premise = no credible evidence= no objectivity.

Science must have absolutely zero presumptions. Science has to to unbiased in pursuit of the facts.

 

[paulitician]

so you claiming you're intelligent...how long have you been having these delusions?
posting walls of bullshit is just that, walls of bullshit

and of course it's a twoofer site,,,so by it's very nature it's invalid.

Yeah but you still haven't watched this movie. So you really can't comment on it. Just watch the movie and then come back to discuss. It's not too hard and it's free. So give it a shot.

I have seen the film and all the other ones, the answer remains the same:false premise = no credible evidence= no objectivity.

Science must have absolutely zero presumptions. Science has to to unbiased in pursuit of the facts.

I don't believe you when you claim you saw this movie. Your credibility is somewhat lacking. I just don't believe you. Sorry.

 

[daws101]

Yeah but you still haven't watched this movie. So you really can't comment on it. Just watch the movie and then come back to discuss. It's not too hard and it's free. So give it a shot.

I have seen the film and all the other ones, the answer remains the same:false premise = no credible evidence= no objectivity.

Science must have absolutely zero presumptions. Science has to to unbiased in pursuit of the facts.

I don't believe you when you claim you saw this movie. Your credibility is somewhat lacking. I just don't believe you. Sorry.

that's funny!

 

[paulitician]

I have seen the film and all the other ones, the answer remains the same:false premise = no credible evidence= no objectivity.

Science must have absolutely zero presumptions. Science has to to unbiased in pursuit of the facts.

I don't believe you when you claim you saw this movie. Your credibility is somewhat lacking. I just don't believe you. Sorry.

that's funny!

You lie. Simple as that. You didn't see this movie.

 

[daws101]

I don't believe you when you claim you saw this movie. Your credibility is somewhat lacking. I just don't believe you. Sorry.

that's funny!

You lie. Simple as that. You didn't see this movie.

 

[paulitician]

that's funny!

You lie. Simple as that. You didn't see this movie.

It is funny. You're a liar and you know it.

 

[daws101]

You lie. Simple as that. You didn't see this movie.

It is funny. You're a liar and you know it.

believe what you will !

 

[paulitician]

It is funny. You're a liar and you know it.

believe what you will !

Oh i will. And I believe you're a liar. But who are you really lying to? Me or yourself? Get back to me when you actually see the movie. Maybe then we can have a civil & honest discussion. Or not. It's your choice.

 

[daws101]

It is funny. You're a liar and you know it.

believe what you will !

Oh i will. And I believe you're a liar. But who are you really lying to? Me or yourself? Get back to me when you actually see the movie. Maybe then we can have a civil & honest discussion. Or not. It's your choice.

lol..lol.
I've seen it and it's just another steaming pile that you guys eat up until the next big film or twoofer thing comes around.
what would you know about honesty ,as all the shit you espouse is a complete fabrication.

 

[paulitician]

believe what you will !

Oh i will. And I believe you're a liar. But who are you really lying to? Me or yourself? Get back to me when you actually see the movie. Maybe then we can have a civil & honest discussion. Or not. It's your choice.

lol..lol.
I've seen it and it's just another steaming pile that you guys eat up until the next big film or twoofer thing comes around.
what would you know about honesty ,as all the shit you espouse is a complete fabrication.

 

[daws101]

Oh i will. And I believe you're a liar. But who are you really lying to? Me or yourself? Get back to me when you actually see the movie. Maybe then we can have a civil & honest discussion. Or not. It's your choice.

lol..lol.
I've seen it and it's just another steaming pile that you guys eat up until the next big film or twoofer thing comes around.
what would you know about honesty ,as all the shit you espouse is a complete fabrication.

the 2012 dodge deflect...all the best twoofers own one.

 

[paulitician]

lol..lol.
I've seen it and it's just another steaming pile that you guys eat up until the next big film or twoofer thing comes around.
what would you know about honesty ,as all the shit you espouse is a complete fabrication.

the 2012 dodge deflect...all the best twoofers own one.

UH DOI...YOU TWOOFER...YOU GOTS TIN FOIL HAT...UH DUH. Back to your stale parroting retard shyte i see. Get some new material. Please.

 

[daws101]

the 2012 dodge deflect...all the best twoofers own one.

UH DOI...YOU TWOOFER...YOU GOTS TIN FOIL HAT...UH DUH. Back to your stale parroting retard shyte i see. Get some new material. Please.

i will when you do.

 

[Ringel05]

I have especially become convinced that WTC 7 had to be brought down by a controlled demolition. Fire did not cause that perfectly symmetrical collapse. No way.

Ya know you can get the medication you need, any good shrink would be more than willing to help, it's what they do.

 

[daws101]

I have especially become convinced that WTC 7 had to be brought down by a controlled demolition. Fire did not cause that perfectly symmetrical collapse. No way.

Ya know you can get the medication you need, any good shrink would be more than willing to help, it's what they do.

too bad they don't work for free!

 

[Mr. Jones]

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.

so you claiming you're intelligent...how long have you been having these delusions?
posting walls of bullshit is just that, walls of bullshit

and of course it's a twoofer site,,,so by it's very nature it's invalid.

What is bullshit about it asshole? Try to debate the topic, instead of
deflecting, but it seems that you can't.
You posting stupid responses with no substance or valid rebuttals to back up your opinions is exactly the BS you bring up and are complaining about.
You have yet to provide anything of intelligent or even interest in any of your juvenile responses.
We can all expect a series of idiotic little pics of dog shit, and one liners from you, that's it. You're as bad as the parrot911 you replaced, but even more intellectually challenged.

 

[paulitician]

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.

so you claiming you're intelligent...how long have you been having these delusions?
posting walls of bullshit is just that, walls of bullshit

and of course it's a twoofer site,,,so by it's very nature it's invalid.

What is bullshit about it asshole? Try to debate the topic, instead of
deflecting, but it seems that you can't.
You posting stupid responses with no substance or valid rebuttals to back up your opinions is exactly the BS you bring up and are complaining about.
You have yet to provide anything of intelligent or even interest in any of your juvenile responses.
We can all expect a series of idiotic little pics of dog shit, and one liners from you, that's it. You're as bad as the parrot911 you replaced, but even more intellectually challenged.

All he or she has is that stale "YOU TWOOFER!" and "YOU WEAR TIN FOIL HAT!" shyte. Nothing new or original. 'Juvenile' is the key word in your assessment. He or she hasn't even seen the movie yet spews so much juvenile venom about it. Just a silly little troglodyte in the end. Not worthy of any more replies.

 

[daws101]

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.

so you claiming you're intelligent...how long have you been having these delusions?
posting walls of bullshit is just that, walls of bullshit

and of course it's a twoofer site,,,so by it's very nature it's invalid.

What is bullshit about it asshole? Try to debate the topic, instead of
deflecting, but it seems that you can't.
You posting stupid responses with no substance or valid rebuttals to back up your opinions is exactly the BS you bring up and are complaining about.
You have yet to provide anything of intelligent or even interest in any of your juvenile responses.
We can all expect a series of idiotic little pics of dog shit, and one liners from you, that's it. You're as bad as the parrot911 you replaced, but even more intellectually challenged.

I replaced no one. that's your paranoia talking.

you either have comprehension problems or memory problems
I have on many occasions explained why it's bullshit.
as to having no substance or not being valid, again that says more about you then me.