Im not defensive, my question are legit. Am I not allowed to do that? I also do calculations for debuking sites as well and many other blogs. I also use to work for Raytheon (part of MIC). I could give you all kinds of fuel to attack me. Im not worried about that or defensive, I just was asking why I was being attacked.
But it's all conjectural, isn't it? I mean, there's really nothing in the way of solid proof, since most (if not all) the physical evidence was so quickly disposed of.
I have some questions about WTC 7:
If the "severe damage" was so "severe" that it led to the collapse, then why exactly is it not visible on all sides of the building?
If the damage wasn't evenly spread throughout the building, then why did it collapse so evenly, into its footprint?
Also, when looking at footage of actual controlled demolitions, why does it look so identical to the WTC 7 collapse (without the official story (spin), you'd swear it was the same)?
The pancake theory:
How can you have pancaking of the floors AND pulverization of all of them?
Why was the WTC 1 and 2 complete rubble, with no pancaked floors whatsoever?
A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory
The truss theory:
The "Truss Theory" is Implausible
WTC 1 & 2:
If there was a "raging inferno", why weren't the windows blowing out because of it?
If the heat wasn't strong enough to blow out the windows, how is it then strong enough to weaken steel in approximately 2 hours?
Why wasn't the WTC lit up like a candle, if there was a "raging inferno"?
Why didn't the 1975 WTC fire start to collapse the building, when it raged for 3 hours?
How would the airliners have helped, when they only damaged one part of a few floors?
If the damage from the jet airliners was so great, then why didn't the area above collapse or fall off immediately?
Why were the cores still solid, and the impacted floors still partially intact, after the impact?
Why was there a pyroclastic flow, when the towers were pulverized to the ground?