03-20-2021, 12:47 AM
(03-19-2021, 12:18 AM)LP link Wrote:Not really debunked [member=20]kruddler[/member] just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.
You can't ignore the basic engineering, the steel only survives for a long period of time if it's clad in something like concrete, but that cladding probably didn't survive the plane impact. Jet fuel isn't the only fuel in the fires, zinc and aluminium cladding burn very well as we all know from the London high-rise tragedy. Both metals, at least one of them, is a basic ingredient of thermite and that is also what contributed to the famous Zepplin fires, they were basically painted with thermite to make them hydrogen leak proof.
WTC7 wasn't even hit by a plane.
The fires within that building were few in number, small in size and puffing grey smoke (limited intensity) in short order.
Bang on about WTC1 and WTC2 all you like.
WTC7 is the unassailable problem.
A 47 story skyscraper collapsed symmetrically in near on free small speed - weakened or buckled steel simply does not do that.
Free fall speed demands no resistance from below.....hmmm.
That's fact, not hypothesis.
Finals, then 4 in a row!