Building 7 ???

08-09-2011 12:51AM

weisses wrote: »

unique design yes ... construction method no

So then if it's only a shared construction method you're using, why aren't you counting the collapsing overpass which has a similar construction method?

weisses wrote: »

the rest of your reply is nonsense i think

The rest of my post is showing how if you were to apply your own logic to the conspiracy explanation then it runs into the same problem you have with the official story.
If you think that the idea that no other steel framed building collapsed due to fire makes it impossible for WTC7 do have done so, you must then concede that idea that no building has been demolished by thermite makes that explanation just as impossible.

weisses wrote: »

And please stop asking things that you know is impossible to answer

Which questions have I asked you that are impossible to answer?

weisses · 08-09-2011 10:22AM

King Mob wrote: »

So then if it's only a shared construction method you're using, why aren't you counting the collapsing overpass which has a similar construction method?

The rest of my post is showing how if you were to apply your own logic to the conspiracy explanation then it runs into the same problem you have with the official story.
If you think that the idea that no other steel framed building collapsed due to fire makes it impossible for WTC7 do have done so, you must then concede that idea that no building has been demolished by thermite makes that explanation just as impossible.

Which questions have I asked you that are impossible to answer?

When i see the overpass video half of it is still standing despite a tanker with fuel burning underneath

I don't know how the building collapsed but looking into the EVIDENCE neither did they and came up with the office furniture idea

Thermite who knows do you ? i don't

Could one of the wtc towers with all that debris falling over wtc7 have caused the building to collapse ?? sure 100% but not the way it did imo

quote//
Even if NIST's claims about structural damage from North Tower debris were true, it would not begin to explain the precipitous, symmetrical manner in which Building 7 collapsed. Structural damage to the south side -- particularly to the lower stories -- would have made any kind of vertical collapse all the more unlikely. end quote

And NO i don't buy the simulation because they cannot be evidence because you can set the parameters yourself ... nicely done though

ot: I know colin powell gave a demonstration and didn't do a simulation but everyone fell for it

And i don't know if any building was ever brought down by SECRET thermite charges ... it wouldn't be secret if i knew would it ?

whatstherush · 08-09-2011 11:11AM

@weisses, Leaving aside building 7 for the minute, what is your view on 1 & 2. Do you have any doubts that they were brought down by planes crashing into them and the subsequent fires.

weisses · 08-09-2011 11:41AM

whatstherush wrote: »

@weisses, Leaving aside building 7 for the minute, what is your view on 1 & 2. Do you have any doubts that they were brought down by planes crashing into them and the subsequent fires.

I stay away from the discussion on how the twin towers fell because there were 2 planes crashing into the building and who knows what damage they caused .... I am surprised the floors above the impact didn't collapse instantly on impact ..... It just shows how strong these constructions are (relating to the wtc7 discussion)

A good discussion would be .... when you copy the damage and fires inflicted on wtc7 to the towers (without planes crashing into them) would they collapse ?

whatstherush · 08-09-2011 11:56AM

weisses wrote: »

I stay away from the discussion on how the twin towers fell because there were 2 planes crashing into the building and who knows what damage they caused .... I am surprised the floors above the impact didn't collapse instantly on impact ..... It just shows how strong these constructions are (relating to the wtc7 discussion)

Thats a bit of a copout to be honest. You suspect foul play in building 7 coming down, but with respect to an the event intrinsically linked to building 7 coming down you are sitting on the fence.

weisses · 08-09-2011 12:31PM

whatstherush wrote: »

Thats a bit of a copout to be honest. You suspect foul play in building 7 coming down, but with respect to an the event intrinsically linked to building 7 coming down you are sitting on the fence.

No i don't think so ... the twin towers were hit by airplanes full with kerosine traveling at 500mph ... could that trigger the collapse of the towers??? I think it could ... I wouldn't be surprised also if just the part above the impact would have toppled to 1 side leaving the rest of the building standing

I just have a hard time believing sporadic office fire could bring down building 7 the way it did

I say sporadic because there were only a few fires visible from the north side

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM&feature=related

first 25 seconds of this clip ...... Thats a building engulfed in fire ... different design ... don't know if the building techniques used are much different

So to me it doesn't ad up

whatstherush · 08-09-2011 12:46PM

weisses wrote: »

No i don't think so ... the twin towers were hit by airplanes full with kerosine traveling at 500mph ... could that trigger the collapse of the towers??? I think it could ...

Now we are getting some where.

weisses wrote: »

I just have a hard time believing sporadic office fire could bring down building 7 the way it did

So by inference something else caused the collapse of building 7. What? I'm going to assume you believe some sort of explosive or thermite compound was used to bring it down. (If my assumption is wrong will you clarify how you think the building came down)

So will you talk me through the logic of how and why a building was wired to explode in the off chance terrorists providing a cover story for its explosion by talking out the buildings next to it.

weisses · 08-09-2011 01:06PM

whatstherush wrote: »

Now we are getting some where.

So by inference something else caused the collapse of building 7. What? I'm going to assume you believe some sort of explosive or thermite compound was used to bring it down. (If my assumption is wrong will you clarify how you think the building came down)

So will you talk me through the logic of how and why a building was wired to explode in the off chance terrorists providing a cover story for its explosion by talking out the buildings next to it.

Were are we getting ??? .. please explain ?

Could thermite be used ?? god i don't know

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

from 7:13 interesting to watch i think ... how it would be used i don't know

I cant talk you trough that wiring logic sorry ... normal demolition takes months to set up an implosion like that

Can you talk me through the logic that a few office fires can bring down a building like wtc7 the way it collapsed ?

whatstherush · 08-09-2011 01:47PM

weisses wrote: »

Were are we getting ??? .. please explain ?

Off the fence on how 1&2 came down.

weisses wrote: »

Could thermite be used ?? god i don't know

So you are eminently qualified to doubt that fire and structural damage could bring down 7 but have no ideas what might have brought it down instead.

weisses wrote: »

Can you talk me through the logic that a few office fires can bring down a building like wtc7 the way it collapsed ?

I will try. 100+ story building next to building 7 collapses causing structural damage to 7 and starts fires in 7. You say a few fires, whats a few, I don't know, but I have seen a pic with smoke emitting from the whole side of the building, so it looked like more than a few to me. Uncontrolled fires burn for 7 hours and them along with the structural damage cause a failure in one part of the building. This failure causes other failures which cascade to cause to complete collapse of the building.

So lets try and follow the logic of the alternative.

weisses wrote: »

I cant talk you trough that wiring logic sorry ... normal demolition takes months to set up an implosion like that

This is a fair point, so for building 7 to have been wired for demolition we have to assume that either it was wired clandestinely over those months with out any of the buildings residents noticing whats going on or we have to assume some new technique to wire the building; in the time between when the first plane hit and building 7 came down; has been developed and no person or camera witnessed this.

Apply Occam's razor
Which scenario makes the greatest assumptions.

After the how then you have why was building 7 deliberately brought down?

weisses · 08-09-2011 02:18PM

whatstherush wrote: »

Off the fence on how 1&2 came down.

So you are eminently qualified to doubt that fire and structural damage could bring down 7 but have no ideas what might have brought it down instead.

I will try. 100+ story building next to building 7 collapses causing structural damage to 7 and starts fires in 7. You say a few fires, whats a few, I don't know, but I have seen a pic with smoke emitting from the whole side of the building, so it looked like more than a few to me. Uncontrolled fires burn for 7 hours and them along with the structural damage cause a failure in one part of the building. This failure causes other failures which cascade to cause to complete collapse of the building.

So lets try and follow the logic of the alternative.

This is a fair point, so for building 7 to have been wired for demolition we have to assume that either it was wired clandestinely over those months with out any of the buildings residents noticing whats going on or we have to assume some new technique to wire the building; in the time between when the first plane hit and building 7 came down; has been developed and no person or camera witnessed this.

Apply Occam's razor
Which scenario makes the greatest assumptions.

After the how then you have why was building 7 deliberately brought down?

I never mentioned 1 and 2 anywhere .... You brought it up

My only problem is the way it came down ..... I even support the idea of debris and fires weakening the building ..... But to me that doesnt explain the building collapsing on its own footprint in 14 secs (inc the penthouse) 8 secs otherwise. I totally can follow your logic as well to a certain point

08-09-2011 04:29PM

weisses wrote: »

When i see the overpass video half of it is still standing despite a tanker with fuel burning underneath

I don't know how the building collapsed but looking into the EVIDENCE neither did they and came up with the office furniture idea

So how exactly did the overpass half collapse?

weisses wrote: »

Thermite who knows do you ? i don't

It wasn't thermite.

But maybe it was a super secret space laser? Who knows, right?

weisses wrote: »

Could one of the wtc towers with all that debris falling over wtc7 have caused the building to collapse ?? sure 100% but not the way it did imo

quote//
Even if NIST's claims about structural damage from North Tower debris were true, it would not begin to explain the precipitous, symmetrical manner in which Building 7 collapsed. Structural damage to the south side -- particularly to the lower stories -- would have made any kind of vertical collapse all the more unlikely. end quote

It did not fall symmetrically.
The collapse started in the east side of the building and spread outwards.
There is a noticeable kink in the top of the building as the facade falls.
There is a very noticeable southwards tilt.

Whoever you are quoting either did not see the collapse from all available angles or is lying.

weisses wrote: »

And i don't know if any building was ever brought down by SECRET thermite charges ... it wouldn't be secret if i knew would it ?

So no you can't provide any examples.

So apply your logic, it's impossible for it to have been taken down by thermite?

weisses · 08-09-2011 04:48PM

King Mob wrote: »

So how exactly did the overpass half collapse?

It wasn't thermite.

But maybe it was a super secret space laser? Who knows, right?

It did not fall symmetrically.
The collapse started in the east side of the building and spread outwards.
There is a noticeable kink in the top of the building as the facade falls.
There is a very noticeable southwards tilt.

Whoever you are quoting either did not see the collapse from all available angles or is lying.

So no you can't provide any examples.

So apply your logic, it's impossible for it to have been taken down by thermite?

Maybe fire could have something to do with half collapsing (as i would expect to happen with wtc7)

I want to see evidence about that space laser because that brings a whole new dimension to the debate maybe even worth opening a new thread with that theory KM ?

Maybe he is not lying he is not agreeing with your theory ...big difference

I think its possible for thermite to bring down that building yes ... any building for that matter

08-09-2011 05:01PM

weisses wrote: »

Maybe fire could have something to do with half collapsing (as i would expect to happen with wtc7)

So why only half? What was holding the rest of it up?
What was the comparable structure or effect in WTC7 that you think was going to hold it up?

weisses wrote: »

I want to see evidence about that space laser because that brings a whole new dimension to the debate maybe even worth opening a new thread with that theory KM ?

And I'd like to see evidence about thermite...
why is one plausible to you but the other not?

weisses wrote: »

Maybe he is not lying he is not agreeing with your theory ...big difference

But looking at the collapse the building simply did not do any of the things it said it did.
So he either didn't see the collapse or is lying.

weisses wrote: »

I think its possible for thermite to bring down that building yes ... any building for that matter

So then why is it impossible for fire to have brought it down?

weisses · 08-09-2011 06:00PM

King Mob wrote: »

So why only half? What was holding the rest of it up?
What was the comparable structure or effect in WTC7 that you think was going to hold it up?

And I'd like to see evidence about thermite...
why is one plausible to you but the other not?

But looking at the collapse the building simply did not do any of the things it said it did.
So he either didn't see the collapse or is lying.

So then why is it impossible for fire to have brought it down?

Don't no .... tell me please !!

No i asked you first KM that are the rules
But you are seriously comparing space lasers with thermite ??

And no its not impossible for fire to bring it down

08-09-2011 06:06PM

weisses wrote: »

Don't no .... tell me please !!

No i asked you first KM that are the rules

Asked me what first?
Your arguments are getting less and less coherent.

weisses wrote: »

But you are seriously comparing space lasers with thermite ??

Yes, what's the issue?
Thermite has never been used for a controlled demolition.
There's not a jot of evidence that it was used in any of the WTC towers.
The idea of it being used contradicts what the evidence shows as well as what is claimed in the conspiracy narrative. (To use an example from the video: hearing explosions from thermite which doesn't explode.)

weisses wrote: »

And no its not impossible for fire to bring it down

Then what exactly is impossible about the conclusions of the NIST report?

weisses · 08-09-2011 06:37PM

King Mob wrote: »

Asked me what first?
Your arguments are getting less and less coherent.

Yes, what's the issue?
Thermite has never been used for a controlled demolition.
There's not a jot of evidence that it was used in any of the WTC towers.
The idea of it being used contradicts what the evidence shows as well as what is claimed in the conspiracy narrative. (To use an example from the video: hearing explosions from thermite which doesn't explode.)

Then what exactly is impossible about the conclusions of the NIST report?

Even ct fanatics are not bringing up space lasers please explain why you do

you say There is not alot of evidence.... so there is some ??

I dont agree with the way the building came down as i try to explain page after page ... and you blame me for not anwsering questions etc

08-09-2011 06:47PM

weisses wrote: »

Even ct fanatics are not bringing up space lasers please explain why you do

Actually....
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/space_weapons.html

weisses wrote: »

you say There is not alot of evidence.... so there is some ??

I said

There's not a jot of evidence that it was used in any of the WTC towers.

As in there's not a scrap of evidence...

weisses wrote: »

I dont agree with the way the building came down as i try to explain page after page ... and you blame me for not anwsering questions etc

But you haven't explained it at all. You've just stated that but don't explain what you disagree with exactly, despite me asking you for page after page.

So you agree that the building could have been collapsed by fires. Then what specifically about the NIST report is impossible?

weisses · 08-09-2011 07:04PM

Sorry thought it was a typo

Post 251

08-09-2011 07:15PM

weisses wrote: »

Post 251

So why exactly is it impossible for it to collapse in 14 secs (it was in reality longer, 14 seconds is just the time is was visibly collapsing before it fell out of view behind buildings. It likely collapsed totally in 16-17 secs)

How long should it have taken?

And of course your objection is based on another untruth you were told by the truthers.
WTC7 (and WTC1+2 for that matter) did not fall into it's own footprint.

http://www.debunking911.com/b7debris.jpg
Here we seen the pie left fron WTC7 in the upper centre left, behind the remains of WTC6.
Behind the pile you can see a white building in the upper left section of the photo, covered in debris from WTC7.

http://www.debunking911.com/barclay.jpg
Here we see the pile of WTC7 and it's spilling over an entire street.

So again, how should have the building fallen if it was collapsed by fire?

weisses · 08-09-2011 07:25PM

King Mob wrote: »

So why exactly is it impossible for it to collapse in 14 secs (it was in reality longer, 14 seconds is just the time is was visibly collapsing before it fell out of view behind buildings. It likely collapsed totally in 16-17 secs)

How long should it have taken?

And of course your objection is based on another untruth you were told by the truthers.
WTC7 (and WTC1+2 for that matter) did not fall into it's own footprint.

http://www.debunking911.com/b7debris.jpg
Here we seen the pie left fron WTC7 in the upper centre left, behind the remains of WTC6.
Behind the pile you can see a white building in the upper left section of the photo, covered in debris from WTC7.

http://www.debunking911.com/barclay.jpg
Here we see the pile of WTC7 and it's spilling over an entire street.

So again, how should have the building fallen if it was collapsed by fire?

Okay i give you those 2 seconds (you must be bummed that i didn't say 7 seconds)

I would have expected the building to fall in stages and i don't have fancy simulations and stuff if i could give you a perfectly good logical explanation would you accept it or hit me on the head with that not fully public nist report ?

08-09-2011 07:29PM

weisses wrote: »

Okay i give you those 2 seconds (you must be bummed that i didn't say 7 seconds)

I would have expected the building to fall in stages and i don't have fancy simulations and stuff if i could give you a perfectly good logical explanation would you accept it or hit me on the head with that not fully public nist report ?

And how do you mean stages?
Like the collapse starting in one area of the building them spreading out and pulling the rest of it down or something?

What is your logic explanation and is it based on anything at all other than your intuition.

Also I like how you're complaining that the NIST report "isn't fully public" yet have no opinion on the very clearly, very dishonestly edited videos you are defending.

weisses · 08-09-2011 07:51PM

King Mob wrote: »

And how do you mean stages?
Like the collapse starting in one area of the building them spreading out and pulling the rest of it down or something?

What is your logic explanation and is it based on anything at all other than your intuition.

Also I like how you're complaining that the NIST report "isn't fully public" yet have no opinion on the very clearly, very dishonestly edited videos you are defending.

My point is and i say it again that the amount of fire in wtc 7 could not have brought it down the way it did ... a partly collapse on the south facing part maybe because most of the fire was there ..could fire brought down this building?? i think it probably could but the fires were not large and widespread enough imo

To my knowledge i am not defending any videos the one in the other thread has some very interesting points but ill keep an open mind

08-09-2011 08:02PM

weisses wrote: »

My point is and i say it again that the amount of fire in wtc 7 could not have brought it down the way it did ... a partly collapse on the south facing part maybe because most of the fire was there ..could fire brought down this building??

And again not actually addressing my point. It's like getting blood from a stone.

1) fire does not stay in one place it moves around and spreads. You claimed to be a firefighter...
Why do you think that the fire only stayed on the south side?
2) It started as a partial collapse. One small section in the east of the building on one of the lower floors gave out due to the fire, as evidenced by the sudden disappearance of the east penthouse.
This left other already weaken supports trying to support extra weight, which they could not causing them to give. This collapse propagated westwards, dragging the rest of the penthouse down with it.

Now please point out exactly what is impossible about this explanation, then explain why it is impossible preferably based on something other than opinion.

weisses wrote: »

i think it probably could but the fires were not large and widespread enough imo

And what information is this opinion based on?
Do you know exactly how widespread and large they were?

Hell it's my opinion that taking the buildings down with thermite is impossible.
Is that convincing to you?

weisses wrote: »

To my knowledge i am not defending any videos the one in the other thread has some very interesting points but ill keep an open mind

So honest question, before this thread, how long did you think WTC7 fell in?
Had you ever seen the collapse in it's entirety?

weisses · 09-09-2011 08:16AM

King Mob wrote: »

And again not actually addressing my point. It's like getting blood from a stone.

1) fire does not stay in one place it moves around and spreads. You claimed to be a firefighter...
Why do you think that the fire only stayed on the south side?
2) It started as a partial collapse. One small section in the east of the building on one of the lower floors gave out due to the fire, as evidenced by the sudden disappearance of the east penthouse.
This left other already weaken supports trying to support extra weight, which they could not causing them to give. This collapse propagated westwards, dragging the rest of the penthouse down with it.

Now please point out exactly what is impossible about this explanation, then explain why it is impossible preferably based on something other than opinion.

And what information is this opinion based on?
Do you know exactly how widespread and large they were?

Hell it's my opinion that taking the buildings down with thermite is impossible.
Is that convincing to you?

So honest question, before this thread, how long did you think WTC7 fell in?
Had you ever seen the collapse in it's entirety?

1: really? it moves around hmmmm maybe i need to rethink everything i know

Most of the fires stayed on the south side yes fires were visible from the north side but not a raging inferno to justify the collapse imo

2:The only thing i see is the penthouse collapsing and you could see some windows bursting below that (correct me if i am wrong ) have no doubt you will

Its a plausible explanation you gave... as long as you leave the word
evidence out of it fine by me

I have trouble with this fire collapse theory because there wasn't enough fire on the north side to weaken the construction enough for it to imploded on itself the way it did but again my opinion

uh yes when its your opinion why not ... i don't understand the whole thermite thing anyway because when you can bring a building down like that with it the way it did ..why don't they use it in demolition now these days
But thats an opinion ..they could have 10 reason to use it I don't have the knowledge to say otherwise

Honest anwser when i saw that thing fell .. they are quick demolishing it then after a while how is that possible ? and Im still baffled

But hey when the planes hit i blamed wrong radar readings for a couple of minutes

weisses · 09-09-2011 08:34AM

King Mob wrote: »

Firstly WTC7 didn't collapse due to fire alone, no one seriously claims that it did.

And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires

See i am open minded

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

weisses · 09-09-2011 10:32AM

I did not read the NIST report

But reading through some ct sites

1:NIST apparently had admitted there was a free fall of the building that lasted over 2 seconds ... Is that accurate ?

If so.... its claimed (by ct people) that it could only happen if there was a controlled demolition... is there any truth in that?

weisses · 09-09-2011 01:10PM

weisses wrote: »

I did not read the NIST report

But reading through some ct sites

1:NIST apparently had admitted there was a free fall of the building that lasted over 2 seconds ... Is that accurate ?

If so.... its claimed (by ct people) that it could only happen if there was a controlled demolition... is there any truth in that?

Forget this post found debate on it in different thread

Debate was going nowhere so i post this here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9Qp5QWRMQ

Is this man talking nonsense ?

09-09-2011 04:30PM

weisses wrote: »

1: really? it moves around hmmmm maybe i need to rethink everything i know

Most of the fires stayed on the south side yes fires were visible from the north side but not a raging inferno to justify the collapse imo

So now you agree that the fires didn't magically stay on one side.
Now what are you basing your opinion that they weren't intense enough on exactly?
Is it possible they could have been intense enough you just couldn't see them where they were important?

weisses wrote: »

2:The only thing i see is the penthouse collapsing and you could see some windows bursting below that (correct me if i am wrong ) have no doubt you will
Its a plausible explanation you gave... as long as you leave the word
evidence out of it fine by me

Ok since now you agree that the official explanation is plausible, what exactly is your problem with it?

weisses wrote: »

I have trouble with this fire collapse theory because there wasn't enough fire on the north side to weaken the construction enough for it to imploded on itself the way it did but again my opinion

And your opinion is wrong and not based on anything resembling facts. The only reason it's your opinion is because you prefer it to the truth.
All the evidence shows that the fires were spread throughout the building, which you admit, and there's no reason at all for you to conclude that they could not have been intense enough.

weisses wrote: »

uh yes when its your opinion why not ... i don't understand the whole thermite thing anyway because when you can bring a building down like that with it the way it did ..why don't they use it in demolition now these days
But thats an opinion ..they could have 10 reason to use it I don't have the knowledge to say otherwise

Wow, you're that easy to convince?
Well you see I don't think ill informed, untrained opinion is convince, hence why I'm not just buying yours.

weisses wrote: »

Honest anwser when i saw that thing fell .. they are quick demolishing it then after a while how is that possible ? and Im still baffled

But hey when the planes hit i blamed wrong radar readings for a couple of minutes

You say honest answer but fail to actually answer the question:
Before this thread, how long did you think WTC7 fell in? (In seconds.)
Had you ever seen the collapse in it's entirety? (yes or no?)

These aren't trick questions and I don't understand why they would give you trouble.

weisses wrote: »

And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires[/SIZE

See i am open minded

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

So I'm struggling to force you to answer questions I'm currently making yet you dive back into this thread to find a post I made ages ago...
Why? Are you that desperate to avoid the questions I'm asking?

weisses wrote: »

I did not read the NIST report

But reading through some ct sites

1:NIST apparently had admitted there was a free fall of the building that lasted over 2 seconds ... Is that accurate ?

If so.... its claimed (by ct people) that it could only happen if there was a controlled demolition... is there any truth in that?

No it's not true that they admit that the building fell for 2 seconds in free fall.
They say that they use a segment of video tape to measure the speed of collapse of that façade of the building.
In those 2 seconds or so of the facade falling, the internal structure of the building had already totally collapsed.
Now even if this wasn't the case, the conspiracy theorists still claim a free fall of 6 or 7 seconds.

And no, 2 seconds of free fall do not indicate it was a controlled demolition.
If it was, why was it in the NIST report?

Now please stop trying to throw in tangents and address what I've already posted and you are straining to avoid.

weisses · 09-09-2011 04:40PM

Me trying to avoid or you failing to accept

Maybe you can pm me the anwsers you want so we can get this over with

Because i will never pass the king mob exam i think

09-09-2011 05:00PM

weisses wrote: »

Me trying to avoid or you failing to accept

Maybe you can pm me the anwsers you want so we can get this over with

Because i will never pass the king mob exam i think

So now you agree that the fires didn't magically stay on one side.
(1.) Now what are you basing your opinion that they weren't intense enough on exactly?
(2.) Is it possible they could have been intense enough you just couldn't see them where they were important?

Originally Posted by weisses View Post
2:The only thing i see is the penthouse collapsing and you could see some windows bursting below that (correct me if i am wrong ) have no doubt you will
Its a plausible explanation you gave... as long as you leave the word
evidence out of it fine by me

(3.)Ok since now you agree that the official explanation is plausible, what exactly is your problem with it?

(4.)Before this thread, how long did you think WTC7 fell in? (In seconds.)
(5.)Had you ever seen the collapse in it's entirety? (yes or no?)

Originally Posted by weisses View Post
i think it probably could but the fires were not large and widespread enough imo

(6.)And what information is this opinion based on?
(7.)Do you know exactly how widespread and large they were?

(8.)So again, how should have the building fallen if it was collapsed by fire?

And these are just from my last 5 or so posts.
None of these questions were answered in detail if at all and it doesn't include the straight points I made, for example the part where I showed that your claim that WTC7 fell in a neat pile was wrong.

If you can't answer any of these questions, don't pretend I didn't ask it. Explain why you can't answer it. It might just be important.

Building 7 ???

Comments