To me, it looks like those fires could have brought the building down. Yeah, you can say the Madrid bldg. didnt fall, but some things happen that cant be explained in this world.

:blink:

Okaayy..

Lets all stop, this is not a conspiracy after all.

It "LOOKS" like it "COULD" have brought it down.

Thats enough for me. Lets all go home.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Maybe to you, but not to us and not to Richard Gage.

Architect Richard Gage SSU presentation 4/20/07
http://AE911Truth.org
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8079

thanks for the links :)

Thanx Chuck

Its about time

18% and expanding

Its like watching your fingernails grow, but its happening.

If it cannot be explained as a controlled demolition, then it surely cannot be proven that it was fire.

What the problem with people approaching this subject for the first time is, that they are imagining that fire can destroy steel structures. And they'd be correct to imagine it.

But what they don't realize is that it is only fires of extremely high temperatures that can do this. Of course, in a blast furnace, steel is melted, formed, and then removed to cool into it's final shape.

Someone first needs to prove that there was a giant blast furnace at the base of WTC7 that could have not gradually, but almost simultaneously removed all of the supports of the building without visible fires all around the structure, but with fires only in a few small areas of the building...

The uniformity of the collapse is the main point, along with the speed of collapse.

In that video you can only see a small bit of the floors and there were only like 2 or 3 floors on fire and NOT BLAZING. It's just more evidence of how it could not bring down the building. Only a massive failure of all trusses/floors/whatever at the same time could make the building go vertically down like that.