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 NISTÂ’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, NISTÂ’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 canÂ’t have your cake and eat it too.
Now, think how fast a cast-iron frying panÂ’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 skyscraperÂ’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. NISTÂ’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. ColeÂ’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
