anybody find evidence of explosive demolitions being used yet?
i didnt think so....
i'll check back in a while to see if these stupid fucking retards have come up with one shred of actual evidence.
Some of the evidence ignored by NIST is physical evidence that explosives were used to bring down WTC 7.
Swiss-Cheese Steel: I will begin with the piece of steel from WTC 7 that had been melted so severely that it looked like Swiss cheese. Explaining why it called this the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation, James Glanz wrote: The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright. [15] Glanzs statement was, in fact, quite an understatement. The full truth is that the fires in the building could not have brought the steel anywhere close to the temperature about 1,482°C (2,700°F) needed for it to melt.
Nanothermite Residue: What was that? A report by several scientists, including chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, showed that the WTC dust contained unreacted nanothermite, which unlike ordinary thermite, which is an incendiary is a high explosive. This report by Harrit and his colleagues, who included Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, did not appear until 2009, [26] several months after the publication of NISTs final report in November 2008.
The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been high-order damage. Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:
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. [27]
That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.
But when asked whether it had, NIST said No. A reporter asked Michael Newman, a NIST spokesman, about this failure, saying: [W]hat about that letter where NIST said it didnt look for evidence of explosives? Newman replied: Right, because there was no evidence of that. But, asked the reporter how can you know theres no evidence if you dont look for it first? Newman replied: If youre looking for something that isnt there, youre wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers money. (You couldnt make this stuff up.)
When Shyam Sunder, who headed up NISTs investigation of the WTC buildings, gave his press conference in August of 2008 at which he announced that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery he began by saying:
Before I tell you what we found, Id like to tell you what we did not find. We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down. [30]
By making this point first, Sunder indicated that this was NISTs most important conclusion just as it had been NISTs most important conclusion about the Twin Towers. However, although Sunder claimed that this conclusion was based on good science, a conclusion has no scientific validity if it can be reached only by ignoring half the evidence.
Molten Metal: In addition to the ignored evidence already pointed out, NIST also, in its investigation of the WTC, ignored reports that the rubble contained lots of molten metal which most people described as molten steel.
Testimonial evidence for explosives-
Besides ignoring physical evidence that explosives had been used, NIST also ignored testimonial evidence.
NISTs Twin Towers Report: In its 2005 report on the Twin Towers, NIST ignored dozens of testimonies provided by reporters, police officers, and WTC employees, along with 118 testimonies provided by members of the Fire Department of New York. [38] NIST even explicitly denied the existence of these reports, saying that there was no evidence (collected by . . . the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions that would have suggested that explosives were going off.
However, when a group of scholars including scientists and a lawyer called NIST on this false statement, NIST refined its meaning, saying:
NIST reviewed all of the interviews conducted by the FDNY of firefighters (500 interviews). . . . Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC Towers.
So, although NIST had said in its report that there was no testimonial evidence for explosives, it now seemed to be saying that, because only 118 out of 500 reported explosions, the testimonies, taken as a whole, do not support the idea that explosions were going off, so that NIST had been justified in claiming that there was no testimonial evidence to support the idea that explosives had been used.
Imagine an investigation of a murder on the streets of San Francisco. Of the 100 people who were at the scene at the time, 25 of them reported seeing Pete Smith shoot the victim. But the police release Pete Smith, saying that, taken as a whole, the testimonies did not point to his guilt. That would be NIST-style forensic science.
The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven
And this is the so called comprehensive report you stupid fucking loons are proud to say you back and support?
Come back when you grow a brain with some common sense moron.