This is a poisoning the well technique, uses the association of negative emotions to distract a subject from actual evidence in an argument.

This user is trying to suggest no planes hit WTC1&2 with there final bullet point, when the first three are correct statements, according to qualified commercial pilots

A large aircraft did crash in to the Pentagon, you have fallen for the red herring, as did I, once upon a time.

This guy you are debating with, is setting up straw men and knocking them out the park, you are not going to win the argument.

The Pentagon crash is a dead end, research wise.

The people telling the narrative about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, are the only people holding the evidence.

It seems like your the guy with the clue, can you therefore explain to me why and/or how WTC7 went into literal freefall?

It came down in free fall speed suddenly = proof it was demoed.

For 2.25 seconds it was in absolute freefall.

The acceleration of gravity in New York City is 32.159 ft/s2. WTC7 had 2.25 seconds of literal freefall, this is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance. The collapse was complete in 6.5 seconds. Free-fall time in a vacuum, from Building 7's roof is 5.96 seconds

For any object to fall at gravitational acceleration, there can be nothing below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitational acceleration (where did every single structural supporting columns go, instantly, at the exact same time?)

There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs, this is basic Newtonian physical principles.

You either agree with this very basic concept, or you need to start making a case for a new realm of science that has never been witnessed before.

Accusing someone of being mentally ill is absolutely disgusting behavior, truly the sign of someone who supports the mass killings our government does.

It didnt.

So you disagree with the official government report?

You are then a truther and you didn't even know it.

I am glad that you admit that the official reports regarding 9/11 are fraudulent and wrong, this is what all the evidence proves, by proxy then you also can not believe in the official US government conspiracy involving 19 Muslim hijackers.

You are a truther

let alone believe they could off something on the scale of 9/11

What is your theory, forgetting the fact they have literally planned something like this before, aka Operation Northwoods.

You have a lot of faith in our governments ability.

I have zero, stop projecting.

The NIST's investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, that resulted in the NCSTAR report, is inadmissible in a court of law in the United States, because it fails the Daubert standard, this determines the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts, The Federal Rules of Evidence and the Admissibility of Expert Opinion Testimony in an Adversarial Evidentiary Proceeding

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, on its own initiative but only after consultation with local authorities, may initiate and conduct investigations to determine the causes of structural failures in structures which are used or occupied by the general public. No part of any report resulting from such investigation, or from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act [15 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.], shall be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report.

Under the standards established by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed 2d 469 (1993) and its progeny, expert testimony offered to support the official theory and hypotheses concerning the cause of the destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7 (the WTC) on September 11, 2001 would probably be excluded from admission into evidence by an impartial judge in a civil or criminal proceeding

The Daubert standard provides a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony during United States federal legal proceedings. Pursuant to this standard, a party may raise a Daubert motion, which is a special case of motion in limine raised before or during trial to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy refers to the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard

Under Daubert and FRE 702, when carrying out evidentiary gate-keeping duties under the Federal Rules of Evidence, judges must at a minimum inquire into:

• 1 Whether the opinion or theory is susceptible to testing and has been subjected to such testing

NIST fail - their theory is unproven and untested, there own testing, in particular, the material and fire tests conducted by NIST, did not support its initial findings They did not look for evidence of explosives, contrary to NFPA guidelines.

More importantly, any actual relevant sections of the official report are classified for public safety, they will not even release them to a licensed NYC architect in regards a FOIA request

• 2 Whether the opinion/theory has been subjected to peer-review and publication

The NIST report is not peer reviewed, it was and still is, self published and thus has zero credibility. In academia, peer review is used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.

• 3 Whether there is a known or potential rate of error associated with the methodology used and whether there are standards controlling the techniques’ operation

The rate of error is 100%. That is, the previous rate of success in collapsing two 110-story steel skyscrapers such as WTC 1 and 2, by a fire ignited by jet fuel (even taking into account aircraft impact damage) and one 47 story steel skyscraper such as WTC 7 (which had no aircraft impact damage) is 0%. The official explanation of the destruction of these three buildings on September 11, 2001 assumes unprecedented processes and events in all three cases.

• 4 Whether the opinion/theory has been scrutinized and generally accepted by the scientific community.

There is no general acceptance of the United States Government conspiracy theory in the scientific community. The official theory has been rejected by many qualified experts who have reviewed and scrutinized the NIST reports and the data that NIST has made available.

*There are additional factors considered by courts, but all four main Daubert factors are applicable to all cases generally (where the Federal Rules of Evidence apply or where the state courts have adopted the Daubert or similar test)

NIST's specific objectives were:

• Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
• Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location, including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency response;
• Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction,
• Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce failed on every single one of these objectives

The official NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7 is a scientific absurdity

An Unprecedented Occurrence

• First time in the known universe, a steel-frame high-rise building was brought down by fire, literally an unprecedented occurrence of physical phenomena

Visual Evidence of Implosion

• The way it collapsed, straight down, in virtual free fall, (actual free-fall for 2.25 seconds) making the destruction of this building appear to be an example of the type of controlled demolition known as “implosion,” in which explosives and/or incendiaries are used to slice the building’s steel support columns in such a way as to cause the building to collapse into its own footprint

"They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards. . . . This is controlled demolition" - Danny Jowenko, building demolition expert and the owner of a controlled demolition company.

Testimonies about Explosions

• Besides the obviousness from the very appearance of the collapse of Building 7 that it was a product of controlled demotion, there were vast amounts of testimonies about explosions in this building.

“I was up in the emergency management center on the twenty-third floor [of WTC 7], and when all the power went out in the building, another gentleman and I walked down to the eighth floor where there was an explosion and we were trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke, all around us, for about an hour and a half. But the New York Fire Department . . . just came and got us out.” - Michael Hess, New York City’s corporation counsel

Barry Jennings of the New York City Housing Authority, corroborates Hess's version of events in a interview given on the day

“I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down. . . . That didn’t sound like just a building falling down to me . . . . There’s a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. . . . [A]ll of a sudden. . . I looked up, and . . . [t]he thing started pealing in on itself. . . . I started running . . . and the whole time you’re hearing ‘boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.'” - NYPD officer Craig Bartme

Physical Evidence

• Swiss-Cheese Steel - three professors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) had issued a report about a piece of steel from Building 7 that was described in a New York Times story by James Glanz and Eric Lipton as...

“perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” 13 Part of the mystery was the fact that the steel was “extremely thin,” indicating that the steel had “melted away,” even though “no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” Another part of the mystery was that atoms in the steel seemed to have combined with sulfur “to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures,” but as to the source of the sulfur, “no one knows

The thinning and the holes even suggested that the steel had vaporized, an impossibility in a normal office fire.

NIST’s Falsification and Fabrication of Evidence

NIST’s WTC 7 report repeatedly committed scientific fraud in the technical sense, as defined by the National Science Foundation.Besides omitting and otherwise falsifying evidence, NIST also committed the type of scientific fraud called fabrication, which means simply “making up results”

• Falsification - NIST “omitting data.” While claiming that it “found no evidence of a . . . controlled demolition event” NIST simply omitted an enormous amount of evidence for that conclusion.

• Omitting Testimonial Evidence - NIST failed to mention any of the testimonial evidence for explosions. NIST also failed to mention any of the reports of explosions just as the building started to come down. Even though vast amounts of video evidence corroborates this testimonial evidence

• Omitting Physical Evidence NIST’s report on this building also omitted various types of physical evidence. One of these was the piece of Swiss-cheese steel reported by the three WPI professors in a paper that was, as mentioned earlier, included as an appendix to the 2002 FEMA report. Another was the melted iron, the RJ Lee Group, a scientific research organization, proved this, the RJ Lee Group said in its final (2004) report,

  spherical iron particles (the iron had) melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles

• Melted Molybdenum - Another study was carried out by scientists at the US Geological Survey. Besides also finding the spherical iron particles, these scientists found that something had melted molybdenum, which has an extremely high melting point: 4,753°F (2,623°C). Although these USGS scientists failed to mention this discovery in the published version of their report, a group of scientists led by Steven Jones, having obtained the USGS team’s data through a FOIA request, reported evidence that this team had devoted serious study to “a molybdenum-rich spherule.” NIST, however, failed to mention this discovery by the US Geological Survey, although it is another federal agency.

• Nanothermite - A peer-reviewed report by University of Copenhagen chemist Niels Harrit and several co-authors, including physicist Steven Jones and chemist Kevin Ryan, showed that the WTC dust contained unreacted nanothermite. Unlike ordinary thermite, which is an incendiary, nanothermite is a high explosive.

• No Girder Shear Studs and Omission of Stiffener Plates NIST claims that a steel girder connecting columns 44 and 79 broke loose. Having lost its support, column 79 failed, starting a chain reaction in which all the other columns failed. Leaving aside the impossibility of this scenario, NIST’s claims that it was not connected to the floor slab with sheer studs. NIST wrote: “In WTC 7, no studs were installed on the girders.” In another passage, NIST said: “Floor beams had shear studs, but the girders that supported the floor beams did not have shear studs.” Shear studs were used to anchor the beams and girders, including the girder in question and it is irrefutable that the stiffeners were omitted and that their inclusion in any analysis would render the NIST collapse initiation claim thoroughly impossible

• A Raging 12 th Floor Fire at 5:00 Although in its 2004 Interim Report on WTC 7 , NIST said that by 4:45 PM, “the fire on Floor 12 was burned out” it claimed in its 2008 report that at 5:00, just 21 minutes before the building collapsed, the fire on this floor was still going strong.

NIST admit that their theory is not consistent with physical principles, which means they are not based on the laws of physics.

Building 7 came down at around the same rate as a free-falling object, it was in free-fall for 2.25 seconds. But in NIST’s Draft for Public Comment, issued in August 2008, it denied this, saying that the time it took for the upper floors — the only floors that are visible on the videos – to come down “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles” As this statement implies, any assertion that the building did come down in free fall would not be consistent with physical principles — meaning the laws of physics. Explaining why not, during a “WTC 7 Technical Briefing” on August 26, 2008, Shyam Sunder said....

free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . The time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous

But in NIST’s final report, which came out in November 2008, it admitted free fall and free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to motion. NIST no longer claim that its analysis was consistent with the laws of physics

Why can you not give me an answer? I also took your advice and thought about it, what do you think of the below table?

How Researchers Have Accounted for the Evidence Regarding the Structural Behavior of WTC 7

In conclusion, the hypothesis of controlled demolition readily, simply, and completely explains all of the evidence regarding the structural behavior of WTC 7 during its destruction.

It also explains the high degree of confidence and precision with which WTC 7’s destruction was anticipated.

• Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part One - Tenants

• Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part Two - Security

• Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part Three - Carlyle, Kissinger, SAIC and Halliburton: A 9/11 Convergence

• Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part Four - Cleanup

Why?

Maybe we take a step back and cast a wider net on 9/11?

Without 9/11 there would be no "war on terror".

Without 9/11 there would be no "clash of civilizations"

Without 9/11 there would be no war in Afghanistan.

Without 9/11 there would be no war in Iraq.

Without 9/11 there would be no war in… (insert any country classified as part of the "axis of evil" or defined as being 'with the terrorists')

Without 9/11 thousands of U.S. troops would not have been sent to their deaths.

Without 9/11 hundreds of thousands of citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been sentenced to their deaths.

Without 9/11 there would be no inaction on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Without 9/11 there would be no civilian contractors in Iraq and the scandal that has followed them would have been averted.

Without 9/11 there would be no false military reporting (Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch), and no crack down on the freedom of the press (banning photographing the returning coffins).

Without 9/11 there would be no Patriot Act.

Without 9/11 there would be no NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

Without 9/11 there would be no Camp Delta and no Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay.

Without 9/11 there would be no Military Commissions Act and no coordinated program of extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention and torture of those defined as “enemy combatants”.

Without 9/11 there would be no vast increase in secrecy and complete militarization of intelligence under the newly created office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Without 9/11 there would not be thousands of dead and dying emergency workers who are suffering crippling and fatal respiratory illnesses.

Without 9/11 there would be no vast increase in military and security spending that goes arm in arm with huge cutbacks in other key social programs (such as levees in New Orleans).

Without 9/11 there would have been no total abandonment of fiscal restraint, which has contributed to plunging the nation into an abyss of debt and looks likely to tip the world into a deep recession if not a complete depression.

And on and on and on.

Perhaps most importantly, without 9/11 there would be no "post 9/11 society/mentality".

At the end of the day 9/11 Truth is the peace movement.

Why was #7 demoed?

You tell me.

I too, am sad for you.

You spend you time trying to debunk 9/11 truthers in your free time, your cause is to defend a government position which is proven wrong, mine is to get a new investigation.

You are the sad one.

See the penthouse collapse then wait for the rest to come down.

Yes, it is direct evidence of pre weakening of the structure, this is common in controlled demolitions, i am surprised you debunkers still try use this one because you are pointing out an obvious flaw with the official story and by proxy supporting the controlled demolition theory.

No it isn't, this is my argument.

WTC7 was there, it was then part of a controlled demolition, just like all other steel framed buildings that have shown all the signs of controlled demolition, the collapse of WTC 7 exemplified many of the signature features of controlled demolition, including:

• Sudden onset: The roofline of WTC 7 went from being stationary to being in free fall in approximately one half-second.

• Rapidity: The roofline of WTC 7 fell to the ground in less than seven seconds.

• Free fall: For 2.25 seconds, or a third of its descent , WTC 7 fell at the rate of gravity over a distance of eight stories, meaning that the lower structure of the building provided no resistance whatsoever.

• Symmetry: WTC 7 fell directly downward through what had been the path of greatest resistance, with the debris deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint.

• Explosions and window breakage: Video shows vertical sequences of explosions and window breakage running up the north face of WTC 7 as it began to collapse.

• Dismemberment: The steel frame of WTC 7 was almost entirely dismembered.

• Totality: The entire structure of WTC 7 collapsed to the ground, leaving no sections of the building standing

all the evidence confirms controlled demolition, none confirm "fire"

I love it, all their arguments are dead in the water and easily proven wrong, they talk themselves into arguments which they can not logically defend

Then all they are doing is exposing the absurdity of the official myth, which is a good thing.

Why can you not give me an answer? I also took your advice and thought about it, what do you think of the below table?

How Researchers Have Accounted for the Evidence Regarding the Structural Behavior of WTC 7

In conclusion, the hypothesis of controlled demolition readily, simply, and completely explains all of the evidence regarding the structural behavior of WTC 7 during its destruction.

It also explains the high degree of confidence and precision with which WTC 7’s destruction was anticipated.