|
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
You believe a building collapsed straight down for the first time in history in that fashion and make fun of others when the only way to justify it is some trash paper from NIST? |
Yea, it did collapse straight down. Are you telling me it didn't  ? The NIST report is the most conclusive, scientific, report regarding this issue. You and your ilk's pathetic attempts to discredit it are laughable. Your alternative, controlled demolition, is fallacious, presents a false dichotomy, and has no physical evidence with which to present. We generally call such views "fairy tales"...
| quote: | | Where is the building that slammed into WTC7 to cause it to fall then? Just talk if you cannot back it up champ. The very report you posted from NIST does not mention that this caused the collapse, they blame it on over exaggerated office fires and thermal expansion. |
Um, it's called the twin towers. What caused the fires and structural damage? I'll give you a hint. Two 100 story skyscrapers fell in the very near vicinity..
| quote: | | How come no other buildings have come down due to office fires and thermal expansion in the same fashion as WTC7, should be easy to answer as there have been many buildings on fire much stronger than WTC7 but not one of you has been able to yet.... |
I don't know. Why does that matter? Your argument is fallacious. Because some buildings didn't collapse, this must mean WTC7 shouldn't have either? LOL. No, wrong.
| quote: | And don't give me BS about the buildings are built differently, WTC7 housed some serious tenants (CIA, Secret Service, IRS, etc) and was a bunker in case of emergency. It was built much better.
http://www.wtc7.net/background.html |
So basically, you'r saying WTC7 was an unsinkable ship? They also said that about the Titanic, and guess what, it sank. Just because a building is well designed does not mean it can't collapse...
___________________
|
