911 inside job

Con says he explains that NIST explains the collapse as progressive however from their webpage they state differently."Progressive collapse did NOT occur in the WTC towers, for two reasons. First, the collapse of each tower was not triggered by a local damage or a single initiating event. Second, the structures were able to redistribute loads from the impact and fire-damaged structural components and subsystems to undamaged components and to keep the building standing until a sudden, global collapse occurred"NIST does not go on to explain the mechanics of this global collapse anywhere they claim that "global collapse" was "inevitable" after the "initiation of collapse."If you look at the video or even a series of photographs of the tower collapse you will not there is nothing above the pulverisation zone , its not stacking up progresively , the weight is not adding up progresively . All material is ejected out the side so what is causing the area below to self destruct literally..The collapse of building 7 by NIST was a result of thermal expansion of column 39 which caused a progressive collapse of the buildingYet the only evidence they provide for this was their computer simulation which does not match the observed collapse of building 7 as I previously argued and neither do they release the inputs to the computer simulation for other engineers to review.The computer simulation cuts off after a few seconds because the outcome of their computer simulation stretches farther from the observed collapse of the building. The building twists around and starts doing a 360 . NIST did no testing on the steel or on column 39 and only speculate that 39 must have failed due to a phenonema 'thermal expansion'that has never happened before. Con argues i Provide no evidence of a controlled demolition yet he and NIST fail to explain how all three towers self destructed themselves , the only logical explanation is explosives.People Heard ExplosionsAccording to Con , Jet fuel survives the inital explosion of the impact travels down 80-90 floors down the elevator shafts without exiting any of those floors gets to the lobby blows up and then also travels down to the basement levels and blows up there too.Bascially lets use it as an excuse for any explosions where there shouldnt have been any.This is the so called logic of the debunkers.Video 1 states explosions 'as if there were detonated as if they had planned to take down the building'Simply google firefighters bombs 911 and you will find video footage or witness testimony of firefighters claiming to say the word bomb.If you want i can . This isnt a main point so Ill skip it. Video 3 shows barry jennings who was in WTC 7 before the two towers collapsed so how was it possible for fires to have spread to building 7 if there was no damage from the collapse of the two towers. WTC7 Wasn't Hit By A Plane, Why Did It Collapse?Core columns in building 5 and 6 did collapse but yet there was no total free fall collapse of the building blaming the magical collapse of the whole building on one column without evidence is very handy excuse for the debunker side .Too bad they dont have any evidence for it or show how it did cause the building to collapse just a computer simulation which doesnt even match reality. Actually 2000 + architects and engineer have signed and it would be alot more if there was media coverage of their argument. Not one architect out of the 1.7 million can answer their questions like how did building 7 collapse at free fall acceleration for 3.9seconds. What does it prove 1.7 million engineers have their heads in the sand. I have personally asked engineers to answer these questions i propose and none can answer find me a architects and engineers for the official story group.The scientific community and science are too different things , science is not based on peoples opinions the scientific community is based around them and science has always proved the former to be lagging behind .Fire nor debris explains the 3.9 seconds of free fall acceleration and the computer simulation does not match observed events.Show me the computer inputs for the computer simulation.Explosions on floors while the building collapses and you dont care... on floors where there was no recorded fire either.What Do Explosive Experts Think?No not now it isnt at the time it was and if it isnt classified how come these so called experts have never heard of it or pretend to never had heard of it, Yes thermite is innefective if you pour it on concrete like they used to do in the 1800s to weld train tracks together , A truther engineer in the video has shown with homemade materials that regular thermite can be used to cut wtc beams cleanly and effectively (debunking Ron craig and the national geo channel) the only thing classified are the devices that used nanothermite or thermite to cut the steel What About The Thermate/Thermite Supposedly Found?Hah ! Con doesnt realise that for a aluminothermitic reaction to take place you need Aluminium in its elemental form !!!!!!! Which is considered an exploives, thanks con.Can con provide a source for the billions of iron spheres found with the exact chemical signature of thermite , no ? Just blame it on office fires once again , in office fires you do not find these spheres . Gypsum is CaSO4, anyone that knows basic chemistry knows that it cannot provide elemental sulphur found in the eutectic mixture of iron sulphide found at the wtc . Debunking websites with no knowledge or background of chemistry or physics seem to claim to be much smarter and qualified than actual professors of chemistry and physics yet there pseudoscience is out there for anyone with half a background in chemistry to laugh at, Why isnt there any real Scientists on these debunking channels or videos coming up with some proper science . Could the Twin Towers Have Collapsed The Way They Did?Its true building 7 didnt fall at free fall speed, it had 3.9 seconds of free fall acceleration ! something that no one can explain , not one of your 1.7 million engineers because it defies physics.IMO controlled demolitions dont fall at free fall speed either.True there is no reason to expect pulverised concrete , but not all of it, where does the weight come from to crush the concrete below if its all dust ? There is nothing above the collapse zone all material is ejected out the side as seen in videos , photos etc.Find me an engineer to explain that mystery without the use of bombs. ? ConclusionCon fails to answer basic questions of the collapse like everyone else and fails to provide a clear source of iron spheres with the signature of thermite with any other known chemical reaction than thermite. To say those chemicals are common in the dust is like to say carbon is common in the earth so why isnt everything diamond, or iron and aluminium oxide is one of the most common components in the earths crust yet we dont have Iron microspheres floating around the air with aluminium oxide coatings.I could go on with other examples but the clear lack of con and the pseudoscientic debunking movement is ridiculous and its no wonder they cant publish one peer reviewed paper while the truther side has more than one.