| Congressional Representative Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan Gender:  Posts: 2,203 Country:  Points: 11,172, Level: 69 | Level up: 81%, 78 Points needed |  |  Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace  Wow knot, I cant believe it. So much to the point where I had to thank you for going back to the OT, instead of continuing the assult on me. I still dont see how building 7 fell the same exact way controlled demolition would have brought it down, but at least you are on topic.
My problem is, there claim is that parts of the building were damaged, and it was enough to bring the entire building down, and that may have so. But if the dammage was tward the bottom, on one side, why didnt the building tip over? If it was how they said it was, the building certainly would have tipped over and fell face down, gravity demands its. Physics demands it. Another thing, why would fire be relevent at all? There wasnt any jet fuel in it. Pleanty of steel structures have been on fire before, and till 9/11 none of them have ever fell. | There were diesel tanks throughout that building. These were for emergency generators.
Good Lord, don't you know how to use google? Yes, plenty of steel structures have been on fire before, but seldom on fire for 20+ hours with absolutely no attempt to put the fire out.
Also, the architecture of WTC7 did not lend itself well to any loss of support at all.
Just read, okay? And not the half-truths the conspiracy theorists put out, but actual scientific studies. Did you even click on the links I supplied?
Last edited by knot_e_lady; 05-12-2008 at 10:25 AM.
|