as for proving the official story wrong Please note that in the NIST report on WTC7 there are significant structural details that the NIST got WRONG, and this is important, your tax dollars at work a report that is WRONG and published at taxpayer expense. why should anybody put up with this crap?
No there aren't.. Read up on the architect and the changes made by the Ports Authority. Were you ever in the WTC? The buildings swayed five feet. The planes and the heat cut the spine out of those buildings.. gravity did the rest. I knew they were going to fall shortly after 9 AM..
No detail of any SIGNIFICANCE is wrong in the NIST report. ANy government effort might get someminor details wrong because it is written by people.
So right after the crash of "FLT175" you knew that the towers would fall, that is complete & total destruction as a result of alleged airliner crashes, right? What sort of crystal ball do you use?
That the towers might collapse was a thought throughout the NYFD and emergency workers. It wasn't a shocker.
So you are answering posts for Margot2 ? From the news coverage, at the point that the South tower "collapsed" that was a shocker and totally unpredicted.
Ramzi Yousef thought that the tower they bombed in 1993 would fall on the other one killing thousands,had they parked closer to the poured foundation,they might have done it
The 1993 bombing was avoidable, the CIA/FBI was all over that one and could have stopped it but allowed it to go ahead, maybe somebody wanted to "ping" the structure to see what its resonant frequency was. Just a thought.....
How speculative is it that is the1993 bombing was preventable if the authorities wanted to, but somebody wanted that bombing to happen.
Just my $0.02 worth here, there are all sorts of wild claims going around, and the ultimate test for any of it, is physics, and also probabilities, the fact of the matter is that if it looks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, quacks like a duck, ya know, it just may be a duck, ..... right? WTC7 is obviously a CD, people will complain, call me a nut case, so what? if logic & reason has become so warped & twisted by the propaganda that is spewed fourth by the mainstream media ..... well, is there any hope for humanity?
There is nothing obvious at all about WTC being a CD. The fact your claim is not based on physics or propbability but instead it is based strcitly on wild speculation.
So in your mind, 110 story skyscraper can simply crumble into complete & total destruction and that is the way it is?
You're leaving out the fire and damage part, and you're incorrect about the 'complete & total destruction' part. Try again.
Where is the evidence that the destruction at Ground zero was not total? also the "collapse" event of the towers was supposed to have been powered entirely by gravity, the crash & fires were only considered an initiating mechanism.
There was no complete and total destruction. If there were they would not have spent days weeks and months clearing the debris. If there is debris than the destruction is not complete and total. - - - Updated - - - No it was not powered entirely by gravity and no one said it was.
so what was the additional source of energy that caused the ( in the words of the NIST ) Total Collapse of the tower(s)?
To answer that go learn how much energy was required to hold up the buildings every day and where that energy went when the pull of gravuty overcame them
