WTC 7 Collapse Due To Fire Only.

Ferretman just followed my script almost VERBATIM except he used the old: "It is not an EXACT CLONE so it can not be used for any type of comparison argument."



I at least thought I could make it out of this thread without this happening...

Here is "proof". Have to give those Democratic Underground people credit,he really thought this one out!

[edit on 21-3-2007 by rdang]

Originally posted by ferretman2
Griff-

You're comparing apples to oranges.....you should know better.

The arcitechure of the building is completely different. They are supported differently, shaped differently, constructed out of different materials, different heights and square foot coverage.

Why don't you show me and everyone else empirically why it is apples to oranges. What is the difference between a steel column and a reinforced concrete column? What are the differences in the engineering theories based on the differences in materials etc. Up for the challenge?

WTC7 was ’pulled’ the laws of physics make this the ONLY logical explanation.

Falling debris + fire

i believe it says PRIMARIALY, that doesnt meen other factors didnt play a part!!!

PRIMARILY

doesn’t really explain how falling debris and fires destroyed WTC7 does it? How did the entire building collapse in the way that it did (don’t forget it was FREEFALL within seconds!) due to falling debris and fire as a PRIMARY factor? Can anyone offer a plausible answer?

WTC7 may have partially have been destroyed due to falling debris and fire but not ENTIRELY!