yore two

Their idea of how it fell is just a theory and, as you have acknowledged, they didn't even have the evidence handy when constructing that theory. When you look at a phenomenon, decide on the cause, and then go about explaining the cause in the absence of key evidence, you are not doing science. Do you understand that or not? Do you understand that certain conditions can impose constraints on understanding? I'm sure NIST are very competent people capable of doing good work under the right conditions but those conditions were doomed.

There are several videos of WTC 7's fall, not just one. I have seen at least four angles and what is apparent from all of them is a very orderly collapse, which is incongruous with the supposedly random damage as a cause.

1. You're actually attacking the scientific method. Sorry you have a problem with that. Maybe you shouldn't have rushed those quizzes?

2. Saying they didn't have "the evidence" is dishonest. And you know that. They didn't have 100% of all possible evidence they could have. But there was lots of other evidence - just like those videos you're talking about.

3. You're still attacking the person and not the argument. We all know its because you can't attack the argument. Where did they go wrong Deuces? How many times have I asked and how many times have you avoided the question?

Edit: And, for anyone else reading this, the NIST actually tried testing alternative hypothesizes - like the building falling from a controlled demolition. They ruled them out based on the evidence.

Hah, I love that you're taking the trouble to change my name. I didn't understand the little side discussion before because I do a lot of my reading/posting on the tablet which doesn't show the name of the person quoted.

Deuces how many asymmetrical building collapses due to actual random damage are you comparing WTC7 too?

Whatever you need to tell yourself. Being among the most self-aggrandized contributors on the forum as you are, I'm sure appearances need to be maintained.

It's easier to declare I'm "worst", because it's an argument you can't really counter. Understandable. Many more dedicated and talented coincitards before you have failed as well.

At the very best, your team's Star-Spangled version of events can't ever say with a straight face that a thorough investigation was ever conducted by any definition that constitutes jurisprudence. Heck, the two men that chaired the book deal known as the 9/11 Commission ADMIT it was all a farce.

No one lost their job, no one went to jail. ... That's because secrets needed to be maintained.

"When a flock of birds suddenly and uniformly changes direction, is it a conspiracy? Or merely the simultaneous recognition by every member of the flock where their collective interests lie?"