Okay I did find the link to the Final Report on the Collapse of WTC 7 by NIST.

The following points will be questions about WHY NIST did not begin their investigation by considering the most likely hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7, which is explosives.

Why are explosives the most likely hypothesis?

Answer: Because there were seven features of textbook description of a controlled implosion.

1. The collapse started from the bottom.
2. The onset of the collapse was sudden.
3. The collapse was total.
4. The building came straight down.
5. Its acceleration approximated that of a free-falling object.
6. Most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles, resulting in a huge dust cloud.
7. The building ended up as a relatively small pile of debris.

In fact, insofar as there is a "textbook" that NIST investigation should have followed, it is the Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). This NFPA manual says that investigarors should look for evidence of explosives whenever there is a "high-order damage." which is defined thus:

High order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet.

The first two sentences in this description apply fully to the destruction of WTC 7. Although the third sentence, which speaks of debris being thrown great distances, does not, it definitely does apply to the destruction of the Twin Towers -- which NIST itself admits by claiming that the debris from the collapse of the North Tower, which was several hundred feet away, damaged and started fires in WTC7

In any case, given the fact that the collapse of WTC7 as well as that of the twin towers manifested many of the features mentioned in the NFPA manual as signs of "high-order damage", NIST was virtually mandated to begin its investigation by looking for evidence that explosives HAD BEEN USED.

So the conclusion that NIST should have begun its investigation by looking for evidence of explosives also follows from another principle. "Investigators should avoid positing without good reasons, unprecedented causes for familiar occurrences." This principle in turn follows from another, which is that "like effects generally imply like causes."

Prior to 9/11, every total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building had the same cause: explosives. But NIST asserted that the collapse of WTC7 had an unprecedented cause, saying "This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires."

1. The collapse started from the bottom. NO, IT DID NOT....
2. The onset of the collapse was sudden. WELL, YEA..
3. The collapse was total. YES
4. The building came straight down. CLOSE, BUT NOT STRAIGHT
5. Its acceleration approximated that of a free-falling object. DAMN GRAVITY...
6. Most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles, resulting in a huge dust cloud. YES, THATS WHAT 1000'S OF TONS DO TO CONCRETE
7. The building ended up as a relatively small pile of debri... ABOUT WHAT, 6 BLOCKS OF DEBRIS IS SMALL?

show me anything that shows the two towers that started falling from the ground

Therefore, by NFPA standards, NIST should have began their investigation of the collapse of WTC7 with the most likely hypothesis which is that it was caused by explosives of some sort. They were virtually mandated by the NFPA manual to begin its investigation by looking for signs of explosives. And yet the NIST investigators adopted a different working hypothesis.

NIST wrote:

"The challenge was to determine IF a fire-induced floor system failure COULD occurr in WTC7 under an ordinary building contents fire."

WHY would NIST have assumed that this was "the challenge?"

Why would NIST, already knowing that buildings such as WTC7 can be brought down with explosives -- and indeed that this is the only way in which such building HAD EVER BEEN CAUSED TO COLLAPSE --have asked IF a collapse caused by an ordinary building fire "could occur?" As Physisist Steven Jones has written:

"The likelihood of a near-symmetrical collapse of WTC7 due to random fires (the official theory) --requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns -- is infinitesimal."

Whereas "infinitesimal probability" means virtually zero probability, a structural engineer, Kamal Obeid, has bluntly rated the probability to be, simply zero. Pointing out that perfectly vertical and hence symmetrical collapse of WTC7 required all of its 82 steel columns to have failed simultaneously, Obeid stated that for this to have occurred without the use of explosives would have been an impossibility."

Why would NIST, rather than starting with the hypothesis of controlled demolition, which virtually all scientists, architects, structural engineers, and controlled demolition experts around the world would have considered the most likely hypothesis, have instead started with a hypothesis that most nongovernmental physicists, architects, and structural engineers would have considered extremely unlikely, so unlikely that physicist John Wyndham called it "the least likely assumption?"

Marshaling evidence to support such an unlikely hypothesis would have indeed been "challenging." But why would NIST have taken on this challenge instead of simply starting with the most likely hypothesis?

This is one of the key questions that should be addressed to NIST about its report on WTC7.

A conclusion reached by Wyndham wrote: "NIST"S failure to seriously consider other causes besides fire for the building collapses stdrongly suggests government interference in a scientific process.

Shyam Sunder denied this charge in advance saying, "We conducted our study with no preconceived notions about what happened."

That claim is simply not credible, however, given that NIST's refusal to begin with the most likely hypothesis, along with NISY's systematic ignoring of tha evidence pointing to controlled demolition as the explanation of the WTC 7's collapse.

no damage?...

I assumed that you had read the NIST report.

But here is a clip. Next time do your own research.

THIS IS THE OFFICIAL NIST REPORT: (Since that is who your are defending.)

yea, the pics i just posted says about the same thing... so glad you agree, i see you are learning about physics...

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm... just for kicks, look at some of the things in here....

But the questions I am asking are about why NIST did not begin by considering the most probable cause,(explosives according to the Nationsl Fire Protection Association manuel)... instead they "took up the challenge" of trying to find out if it were possible that a building could collapse like that without explosives.... and just from a fire damage.

They went to great length via computer simulation until they found a plausible explanation that might be convincing without even looking for explosives. Then they said that evidence of explosives were not found.

When asked if they looked for evidence of explosives, they answered." NO."

I do not agree.

If you can't comprehend what my point is that I am making, then you certainly can't comprehend what the truth is.

Physics says that the most plausible explanation for the total collapse of the WTC7 is explosives. NIST did not even start with that hypothesis. They accepted the CHALLENGE to find out if the highly unlikely hypothesis that it fell just from fire damage was at all possible.

They did not even look for explosives.

You obviously are not even reading what I post.


"The likelihood of a near-symmetrical collapse of WTC7 due to random fires (the official theory) --requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns -- is infinitesimal."

Whereas "infinitesimal probability" means virtually zero probability, a structural engineer, Kamal Obeid, has bluntly rated the probability to be, simply zero. Pointing out that perfectly vertical and hence symmetrical collapse of WTC7 required all of its 82 steel columns to have failed simultaneously, Obeid stated that for this to have occurred without the use of explosives would have been an impossibility."

wasn't any there... just because someone wishes there was won't make them "magically" appear...

even in the article you posted, they didn't get their facts straight. first off, the building didn't fall straight down, if fell to the south and east. there are pictures and video to prove
this in the debunking website i posted. feel free to look at it, it explains a lot of this.

We have all seen the videos of how the building fell. It looks pretty strait down to me. A little to the south and east is not much. I don't spend my time on "debunking" websites. They have gotten pretty much to a ridiculous point. I read the real reports and research and books by investigators.

If they did not look for explosives and YOU were not there... then your statement that there was not any there is .... unqualified to say the least.

However I did read carefully the Popular mechanics debunking 9/ll conspiracy theories. It was also ridiculous and not very specific or detailed. I then read the debunking of Popular Mechanics debunking book. It was twice as detailed and specific and made Popular Mechanics look like fools.

By the way the magazine Popular Mechanics was purchase by people who wanted to use its good reputation to support their flaky official theories. The old editors were let go, and the new one has ties to the CIA.

no, actually, my statement is correct. there has not been any proof of explosives anywhere around there. none were found, none were sniffed out by bomb sniffing dogs, not one person reported any type of bomb debris while cleaning it up...

so, my statement is correct, while yours is still just a dream.

Of course the reports all will say "none were found."

The are liars.

thats your opinion... did you find some there?

yep,after its been burning for hours,the first thing you do is look for Explosives!

http://eaton.math.rpi.edu/Faculty/Kapila/OSX/PREPRINTS/Det%20Symp%20%2798/DE131_Cookoff1.pdf

Look at the Cook-Off Temps of some Explosives,then explain to me how they could have survived in a burning Building for hours!
Besides,when was the Building readied for demolition,and when were the Explosives put in place?
None of you Conspiracy-Buffs ever answer that!

Ever inquired what it takes to prepare a Building to be demolished with Explosives?
Doubt it!