Even though this, like RatSkep, is a religious forum, I would have expected the level of superstition to be somewhat less than it is.Seth wrote:Yup. The collapsed buildings literally knocked the pins out from under it.mistermack wrote:As far as I recall, the WT7 building was brought down after being struck by debris from one of the two giant buildings, not as a direct result of fire.
It's a totally different collapse. It could be that fire contributed to the collapse, but it wasn't the direct cause.
We should take this however as an admission that the actual attack on the twin towers was actually a terrorist attack actually committed by flying aircraft into the buildings, since he chooses to attempt to evade the core question by talking only about building 7.
The other obvious question would be, "If your conspiracy theory with respect to Building 7 is true, and that structure was demolished by pre-planted explosives put there by the government, what would the motive be to bring down Building 7 deliberately? It couldn't be to kill people as the building was entirely evacuated long before it collapsed. If the whole attack was a pre-planned event with all the buildings pre-wired with explosives then why didn't Building 7 go down at the same time, when it was occupied?
By evading the collapse of the towers and trying to focus on Building 7 alone he is desperately trying to prop up a conspiracy theory that just doesn't hold water, at all.
Now, it could be that, being the heroic guys they are, the Port Authority bomb-riggers went into the burning Building 7 and, at great risk to themselves, wired it with explosives in order to bring it down. Of course this ignores the question of why they might do so.
Here's the reason: They wanted to bring the building down safely because it was a serious danger as long as it still stood due to the massive damage caused by the collapse of the towers and could not be reoccupied anyway.
Interestingly, I recall news reports of discussions to do exactly that, for exactly that reason, but only after the fire was extinguished so that demolition teams could enter with some reasonable safety. That plan was under discussion when the building collapsed of it's own accord, to great sighs of relief from the authorities who weren't looking forward to the extremely dangerous notion of having to either enter the structure to wire it or even try to demolish it a little at a time externally, given the enormous danger of exactly what happened to it.
The reason I recall this is because I recall having a specific discussion with friends about the possibility of simply having a military aircraft drop a couple of JDAM's on the building to bring it down safely.
What is all this waffle about "As far as I recall...". Do we live 100 years ago, where you have to laboriously dig up hard-copy stored at the back of the shed or in a library? You see, most of the information regarding WTC 7, that was issued during September 2001, is currently available with a few mouse clicks. So click away guys.
Who is this "desperate" "he" that Seth speaks of? Galaxian is neither "desperate", nor a "he". Far from being desperate, Galaxian doesn't give a damn whether you decide to be enlightened or not, or even if you have the capacity for functional rationality, such as realizing that it is a physical impossibility for a building the length of a football field with 83 columns, to fall uniformly at freefall.... unless it has been demolished.
That's why the example of the Dubai hotel inferno was raised in comparison to WTC 7. But keep bleating as you bare your throats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk
