Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sexxxy Sites
Have you even read the multiple probable reasons why #7 collasped. I find it much easier to believe the probable in place of the improbable. As someone once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
|
Yes, I have read it and considering that 97% of the evidence was removed during the time which they were 'investigating' its collapse, anything they have found cannot be that accurate. #7 was almost completely ignored during the time they were investigating the WTC. The investigators claim that the building suffered a great amount of structural damage which weakened its integrity, and then when it caught fire due to the WTC's intense heat, fell seven hours later. The 'great structural damage' is the main thing in question about #7. Where did such horrendous structural damage come from? No jet hit it; falling debris did much less damage to buildings closer to the WTC than evidently than the debris did to #7.
Building #7 is the *only* skyscraper in modern history to fall to fire, that suffered NO direct explosions, NO direct attacks, NO direct damage whatsoever. It supposedly suffered horrendous amounts of damage from falling WTC debris, even though buildings much closer to the WTC did not. The intense heat from the WTC eventually made several buildings close to it catch fire, including Building #7. The rest of the buildings somehow magically managed to avoid the structural damage that #7 magically obtained. #7 falling isn?t proof of government conspiracy; I never said it was. I just believe that #7 falling is proof that not everything is peachy when it comes to a ?case-closed? 9-11. If it was destroyed intentionally, whoever responsible needs to be brought to justice.