They really think we are that stupid

The debris would not be hotter. Office debris, concrete, etc. is not flammable like jet fuel.

 

YouTube - Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 1 of 3

check this video out....I'm sure you will demonize the man but he's a dutch demolition expert.

 

im just trying to help you understand the thinking below.

nope no actual discourse. just pretend you're trying to convince a magic 8ball to change its opinion the building was not demolition-ed.

 

Wrong, a sustained mature fire and its debris is much hotter than debris from initial combustion. Debris holds and produces heat. Even metal, which would not be hot upon initial combustion, would produce and retain far more heat after being exposed to prolonged flame.

 

i still dont understand. my experience with things that burn unchecked is that they collapse. i am aware that some skyscrapers have burned before and not collapsed. my guess is that they maybe had firefighters working on those, perhaps working sprinklers, maybe a lack of structural damage from flying debris from 110 (x2) story destruction across the street. maybe even more factors that were different, like different structural factors.

the idea that one thing collapsed and another didnt, and they had totally different circumstances, this is not odd.

 

he wasn't even aware that it happened the same day. he must be really knowledgeable about the circumstances.

 

in the interest of "discourse" I will give it shot:

-the demolitions could be installed during the chaos of the evacuations, while the situation was confusing and no one noticed. Not 100% sure, it's a tough question to answer.


Nutraitch:

Maybe for the insurance money? Maybe because the building was damaged from other towers collapsing and it's a better decision to blow it up and start over than try and repair it.....again, tough to answer that 100%.

Those really are tough questions to answer, though. I mean, just to use the JFK assasination for an example, I don't really know how they pulled that operation off but I'm pretty damn sure Oswald didn't do it alone. That rifle he used was a piece of junk and he wasn't even that good of a shot.

Don't want to get into that, but you see my point. I can't answer how they put the operation together, fully but the official story can still be seriously flawed. They are two sort of different subjects.

 

maybe they were invisible

of course, you cannot answer that. but one thing we know for damn sure is that you know for sure that a damaged building that burns all day could NEVER collapse. any other explanation is more likely. heat and flames and debris actually benefit buildings. if anything i would expect the building to become taller and more robust as the day went on.

 

Red:

Well, I think you got me there. I think that is a flaw in my argument but like I already said, that's too big a topic to jump into. I have no interest in that.

I think I will cut my losses on this one.

For the record I do think the official story of 9/11 is a cover story but I painted myself into a bit of a corner, trying to seperate Bldg 7 from the Towers.

In chess terms I think I lost my queen and it's all over but the shouting. I offer my concession and throw myself at the mercy of the court.

Anyone for a nice debate about evolution? Death penalty? Big Bang....:sob: