@McGentrix,
That's the route you and farmerman, equals in "science" have taken. A NIST study that has been shown to be a fraud.
Again, the following is all completely relevant to this thread. If we failed to monitor these "relevant contemporary events", we would miss the entire picture.
The two year, fully open, study [unlike NIST's closed science study] conducted at University of Alaska Fairbanks concludes that NIST's WTC7 report/study has a ZERO chance of being correct. "Zero" is a direct quote from the lead scientist.
Trump's Muslim ban flows directly from 9-11. There is nothing that is being discussed here that doesn't have a connection to 9-11, to the now known to be false NIST report, which is a scientific cover up meant to cover up the actual events that occurred on 9-11.
Alleged hijackers vaporizing steel with jet fuel and office furnishings. Preposterous! So why do people of science accept such nonsense?
WTC7 falling at free fall speed - one moment it is fully supported, the next fraction of a second it is in free fall. Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST scientist, described why free fall was not possible - because there was structural resistance below that had to be overcome, it couldn't be instantaneous because of the columns and girders that were providing resistance.
This explanation from Sunder was when NIST was maintaining that WTC7 fell at 40% longer than free fall. Then NIST was forced, in a public comments briefing, by a high school physics teacher to admit that free fall had taken place.
Again, for those who don't understand science. Free fall, unwittingly described by Sunder, cannot take place unless ALL of the underlying supporting structure is removed. If there is resistance, free fall cannot occur.
Free fall means CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Controlled demolition means that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTC7. Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that the alleged hijackers did not cause the
accelerating speed collapses of WTCs 1 & 2. Accelerating speed throughout a collapse is also impossible without explosives removing the supporting structural components below.
Is there anyone here who believes in science?
Wouldn't people who state that they believe in science find it absolutely preposterous that the "scientific paper" that NIST relies on for their collapse analysis was first published on September 13,
2001?