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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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. laugh laugh

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.

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.