yeah its for sure a very good one but not the best. - - - Updated - - - well what do you know,Gam found his way over here.no surprise.the OCTA'S have a way of penetrating these sites.
the official conspiracy apologists dont know how to do anything BUT do that in their posts. - - - Updated - - - I see you have discovered that about him as well? didnt take very long at all did it? hee hee.
Is it to be chalked up to "incredulity" that WTC7 fell in the manner that it did? and allegedly because of fire ( with a little help from the damage caused by material thrown from the collapsing towers ... ) The things mentioned in the video, are real documented features of 9/11/2001. where is the aircraft that is the alleged "FLT77" or for that matter "FLT93" people have the excuse that "FLT11" & "FLT175" where crushed in the "collapse" of the towers, but there is still at least one jet engine unaccounted for, did it get completely crushed up in the "collapse" such that it was only unrecognizable bits of rubble? Also, there is the matter of the actual "collapse" events of the towers, this was alleged to have been a progressive collapse, and was allegedly un-stoppable after collapse initiation, however there are LOTS of different separate possibilities that could have stopped the action before complete destruction of the tower(s).
the very best video, is the one that shows the fall of WTC7 if you actually believe that WTC7 fell because of fires, I have a bridge 4 U, at a super deal ....
It wasn't 'just' fires,structural damage plus the failure of support #79,and to a lesser degree #80 and #81
Sorry LoneStr, not a sexy enough answer. Fire is just too boring, it had to be therm*te, or mini-nukes, or maybe even DEW!!
Your attitude is showing ..... Question at hand is could FIRE, cause the sort of "collapse" event as observed? This is like saying "nothing to see here, move along ..... " There really is evidence of controlled demolition of the towers & 7 maybe U don't consider it valid evidence, however the evidence is real.
Fire weakens steel. The answer to your question is yes, of course it could. Provide it, then. No speculation, no incredulity: show evidence. In nearly 13 years, no one has been able to ... perhaps you will be the first.
So, with that video, can it be assumed that you insist the ONLY way to do a CD is to have very loud sound just like in that video?
I take issue with the "No evidence for controlled demolition exists" the problem here is any given individual has an interpretation of what constitutes evidence. So its totally non-calibrated as to what evidence there really is. This is the advantage of having the issue get its day in court with a JUDGE that will admit into evidence what can be judged on the merits of any individual bit so there is a consistent definition as to what constitutes evidence. Right now, chaos reigns on the internet ...... oops!
and that is a matter of opinion, there have been statements by people who are ( or were ) in the demolition business, who say that there are all sorts of parallels between the "collapse" of WTC1, 2 & 7 and CD. So evidence exists, however its just not to your liking.
You have no PHYSICAL evidence that there was anything that contributed to a controlled demolition. All you can provide is opinion and conjecture that it may have been possible. The problem is that weakening and failure structural components due to impacts and/or fire could also have done what we saw. You handwave this away with garbage rants about odds and possibilities. There is WAY more physical evidence backed by calculations and math that support a gravity driven collapse. That is a fact.
