Comment: NIST report can't be trusted. Massive conflict if interest.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Correlation does not prove (see in situ)

NIST report can't be trusted. Massive conflict if interest.

A logical person has every justification to consider controlled demolition after watching the video(s) and learning that:

No hydrocarbon fire outside a blast furnace can melt steel, or even weaken steel sufficiently to cause a steel structure to collapse, and even if it could, it could not account for a building falling into its own footprint.

The only way to make buildings fall on to their footprints is to carefully plant explosives within the building. Conversely, if a building falls onto its footprint, we can be certain that someone has planted explosives inside the building.

Silverstein Quote: "and I said...'maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it'...and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

The engineers who wrote the FEMA report admitted that their "best hypothesis" about why WTC 7 collapsed had "only a low probability of occurrence."

When asked whether it had carried out tests looking for explosive residue, NIST said it had not. When a reporter asked NIST spokesman Michael Newman why not, he replied: “because there was no evidence of that.” When the reporter asked the obvious follow-up question, “how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?” Newman replied: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers’ money.”

Dan Rather Quote: "Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."