go and google building collapse by fire, and yes make it similiar structures to any of these modern buildings.
I ask again, what direction was the building supposed to fall? If you have no answer, just admit it. But offering vague innuendo that it should have fallen some other direction but down.....but then failing to name what direction that was is arguing by insinuation. Meaning that even you know you can't back up your narrative with evidence.
And again, show us any skyscraper that has collapsed that ever fell any direction but strainght down. You can't. The force of gravity only pulls in one direction with any significance. And that's the direction such skyscrapers are going to fall.
plus building seven was evacutated just prior to its implosion as is evident on numerous videos showing the order to evacuate because it's gonna be pulled as is the term used for implosions. dah. go find me a building
'Pull' in demolition parlance means to attach cables to a building and literally pull it over with bulldozers. Its usually limited to buildings that are say, 3 to 9 stories tall. The WTC was 47. And its ridiculously clear from the FDNY quotes that the expected the building to collapse due to fire and structural damage.
The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell,it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.
So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down
Assistant Chief Frank Fellini
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fellini_Frank.txt
Fire and structural damange. Not a single mention of bombs or charges . All of which you already know. And Chief Fellini is hardly alone;
The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn’t lose any more people.
We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was giver., at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely I continued to operate at the scene….
Chief Daniel Nigro.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt
Fire and structural damage again. You claim to give weight to the FDNY and their assessment. Unless they disagree with you. And then you ignore them entirely. WHich is just silly.
Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area –
Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on.
And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been. That's about it
Chief Frank Cruthers;
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt
In fact, there's not a single mention of explosive demolition as the cause of the collapse of WTC 7 from the FDNY. Not once. Not ever. And downright astonishing....the folks you're accusing of demolishing the building and then covering it up.....are the FDNY themselves! They lost 343 of their own. Why in holy hell would they then participate in the very conspiracy that cost so many of their men.
Not only is your conspiracy contradicted by utterly overwhelming evidence, it just doesn't make the slightest sense.
Worse, the building was on fire. Heavy fires. 'On almost every floor'. There's no system of explosives that that can handle being on fire. Charges would explode or be reduced to bubbling puddles of goo. Detonators would have detonated. Wires would have melted. Transmitters, receivers or timers would have been reduced to melted plastic and twisted wires. But in the midst of a massive building fire, they wired it to explode....in minutes?
Um, no.
Worse still, there were no girders cut in a manner consistent withe explosive demolition. The collapse initiated in virtual silence, and there are no such thing as 'silent explosives'. With actual controlled demolition being ludicriously loud. There was no residue of explosives found in any dust sample, nor any apparatus of explosives ever found. Not an inch of blasting wire, not a single charge, not a single cut, not a single timer or transceiver. Nothing.
How do you deal with these numerous, overlapping, conspiracy killing holes in your claims? You pretend none of them exist. But why would we or any rational person play pretend just because you do? Either your argument works...or it doesn't. And as you're demonstrating with each rout from the crippling inconsistencies between your claims and the evidence......your argument doesn't work.
