Analis said:
Still, you're saying that WTC 7 was ravaged by fires similar those buildings. There is no tangible evidence of them. All tangible evidence we do have points towards their non existence. And the only evidence you have of this big, 20 storey missing chunk is a testimony from a firefighter, whose claims about ravaging arsons is contradicted by this same evidence. Very dubious.
So, let me get this straight. You don't think there was a big chunk of the building missing, and you don't believe there was a fire? Is that really what you're going with?
Yup, nothing strange about that. WTC 7 always had scorch marks and the corner of the building missing.
And there is more than one statement from witnesses talking about the fires, the creaking, the buckling of the building and the big chunk missing from it. Where on earth did you get the idea that only one person was saying this??
What next, are you going to claim that there were no planes, that they were actually missiles fitted with holographic projectors?
And yes, still the same question : why, if firefighters fought much stronger arsons at Caracas or Philadelphia (some say more than 18 hours), didn't they fight much weaker ones on WTC 7 ?
Because of the signs the building was in danger of collapsing, which they ascertained from the noises and the visible buckling in its structure.
If buildings with a steel frame are endangered at 500°C, then the whole science of structural engineering must be revised immediately. Like the science of building demolition.
This isn't what anybody is saying at all. I can't tell if you are deliberately taking things out of context, or just don't understand. Other buildings with steel frames are endangered...if they are hit by planes or other skyscrapers.
Explanations evolved. First it was gas conducts. Then generators exploding; maybe it could explain some of them, but so many ? Then burning kerosen flowing from upper storeys; but would it explode, and it seems that there were no important fires at lower levels. Then the cracking of beams - much below the damaged storeys ? Now, the falling of debris - audible inside the building ?
Yes, theories change. There is nothing unusual about this. That's how things work, as we gather new evidence or come up with new ideas you adapt and change a theory.
You know who you sound like? A creationist trying to disprove evolution. "But, but, you said this, and now you're saying this and so in that case everything you say must be completely wrong!!"
But then that is the truther's conspiracy theories in a nutshell. It's 'God of the gaps'. No evidence or logic, just poking holes and pointing out inconsistencies and mistakes as though that proves what you're saying.
Well, there is a new technology of electronic detonators. An example of a patent, the product was released in 1999:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA= ... LAY=STATUS
Contrary to electric detonators, those electronic detonators do not produce any seismographic pike. So their sounds are less easy to discriminate from the crumbling.
An example here (in french):
http://www.oricaminingservices.com/file ... 042007.pdf
Uh, that's a detonator. It is attached to explosives to set them off. It doesn't prevent an explosion from making a noise or perform any magic that would explain the total lack of evidence for a controlled demolition.
The collapse of the twin towers was not a classic controlled demolition. They usually begin from the lower floors, there the goal was to suggest that the building collapsed from the damaged storeys. When the building structure was weakened by a series of isolated explosions, difficult to notice, the collapse was initiated by a short sequence of explosions (heard by some). The sound of the collapse covered the sound of explosions as they destroy level after level. And indeed, it was a bigger demolition than before.
Really. Well, never mind that nobody heard, saw or recorded any bombs (remember, explosion does not equal bomb), and that from videos it's clear that the tower buckled at the point where the planes hit...how would they have fitted these bombs without any body knowing? Who was responsible for putting them there? Why didn't they say anything when thousands of people died? There'd have be an awful lot of people involved, and not one of them spoke up?
As for WTC7, it was an ordinary controlled demolition, from the basement.
An ordinary controlled demolition that made no sound whatsoever, and didn't require any additional explosives along the rest of the structure. Interesting. Must have been those magical electronic detonators.
Nobody else ? That's only your opinion.
Except, it's not an opinion. By 'nobody else', I mean 'no other experienced, qualified scientists with expertise in this area'. It's ridiculous that I'd even have to make that distinction.
Well, I studied seismology...blah blah
And yet no other seismologists, geologists or anybody have spoken up about these mysterious discrepancies? It's only been noticed by people on the internet? The arrogance is quite amazing though. The idea that you have spotted something which has been missed by people who do this as career. It'd be funny if it wasn't a bit sad.
You're getting sillier with every post.