reply to post by Varemia
On the contrary -- common sense says WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
I've already posted several controlled demolition experts saying that all the WTC towers were controlled demolitons and they knew that as soon as
they saw the videos.
Yet NIST relies on computer animations and only allows crude explosives compared to all explosive options.
It was a cover up just as the 9/11 Commission Report was a known cover-up as the Commission stated out right.
So you say you're not defending the OS. haha.
Why should we make some assumption that goes against the direct empirical evidence of our senses?
We see that WTC 7 goes down just like a controlled demolition as do the other towers.
That's the primary evidence.
Now the OS says -- but there were fires in those buildings therefore we logically infer that fires brought the buildings down -- AGAINST the common
sense empirical visual evidence.
So they are making an assumption that goes against the first primary assumption based on the first primary visual evidence.
So then people say but we didn't hear the proper explosions. Well that already opens up a can of worms -- you have tried to discredit this explosion
evidence but you have given no citations -- no links for specific evidence.
So provide the evidence or else the explosion claims by witnesses stand.
You can't just say -- oh they were dismissed so they are not credible. Oh yeah? By whom and what's the source? Give us the quotes, etc.