What we never did is compare the 2 events.
Event 1... tower 1 and 2
Event 2 .. building 7
What I wana try is compare them not in the way they were constructed
but the way they went down.
The way they went down is a bit diferent.
At the twin towers we got this sort of fire works made out of dust and objects from the towers on the top where the top of the building falls out on
the exterior but the other half from the bottom falls in like an implosion.
At building 7 it all falls in it's interior from top to bottom top included.
So to say, there is a diference betwen the twin towers and building 7.
Now if the shockwave did it I ask.
1 Why did it go from the top outwards(exterior) and not inside it's self like it supose to.
2 free fall of the bottom section means that it had to be from the foundation of the building.
Now there is a violent reaction up there, something had to add to the propultion so objects can obtain
an exterior tragectory.
Results of after shockwave does not do this, this can only be caused from explosives.
If it were the sockwave it would go down and nice with out the top of it going wild.
Like this one
I see no wild motion on top of building 7.
So either way fire and shockwaves do not justify what hapen with the twin towers.
There were explosives in the twin towers , no doubt.
Comparing the 2 events.
I say a big bomb went up there.
What ever hapened fire and shockwaves do not justify this.
[edit on 28-3-2006 by pepsi78]