reply to post by bsbray11
BS,
You said: “First, there is NO EVIDENCE for what you believed in the first place.”
The building collapsed after being seriously damaged with a big piece of a much bigger building and having unfought fires burning in it for many
hours. There is photographic evidence and eyewitnesses for this. The building was bulging between the 10th and 13th floors with another 34 floors
above them. There are eyewitnesses for this. There is no evidence of demolitions. No one was seen hacksawing beams or unscrewing bolts or firing a
ray gun. There is no evidence for anything else that caused the collapse.
What did it? I say that since there is no other explanation, then it must be impact and fire. When I ask for your alternative explanation, you said
“So what "other explanation" you are talking about, I don't even know.”
Maybe you just have a feeling that something was wrong because you thought that buildings should fall more gracefully. OK, consider it logically and
avoid the evil logical fallacy. How slow should they fall? The twin towers fell slower than free fall; the debris from the top beat the towers to the
ground by a good margin; no free fall there. Of course, there are still some people saying demolition.
How about WTC#7? What do you think a demolition would look like and what do you think collapse due to impact damage and fire would look like? How can
you tell the difference? If it is speed of fall, what metric will you set for the speed of fall to decide whether demolition occurred?


