I asked 2 questions.
None were answered.
>burning away 1 key support makes the whole building fall into itself
If only professional demolition companies would know this wisdom.
>Demolition companies don't start fires
Would be way cheaper when this works out so perfectly than placing all these charges.
You should actually go ahead and create your own demolition company.
You would be way cheaper than all the others.
All you need is to place a few random office fires and poof the building is gone.
>What
Why should I ask them once again, you wouldn't answer them anyway.
Somehow BBC also threw away all of their recordings regarding 9/11.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
>We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage
And they are saying that they are definitely not part of any conspiracy, so that must be true, because we know that mass media has never lied ever.
It's not like they ever covered up for pedophiles…..
>It makes sense that a building falls into itself because of random office fires, even when the building is falling for several seconds in freefall
>Placing random office fires to get a building to collapse in on itself is nonsense
Choose one.
>your ID isn't present in the previous bread
So you are a newfag?
>1 support melted, down with the building
Create a demolition company that does just that.
Saves tons of money and works perfectly.
You would beat all the other companies.
>Ad hominem
So you are really a newfag, incredible.
How did you even find this place?
>Notice that the majority of responses
No, you are a newfag, which is actually not an insult. If you would have lurked for a few days, you would know that. Oldfags would tell you to lurk moar. Oldfags is also not an insult.
Lurk moar.
>controlled fires
>controlled
So it would also be a controlled demolition.
Nice that we agree on it being a controlled demolition.
>asshat
Now that's an actual ad hominem.
>one wrong word
The brain brings out the truth even when you don't want it to happen.
So you wanted to write "uncontrolled".
Okay.
So when I go over your posts, at the very least you admit that it's a massive coincidence that this happened. Very very rare. Almost impossible.
How can you know that certain theories are incorrect?
You ignored once again what I wrote, but let me repeat: so you agree that the chances of WTC7 collapsing because of "random office fires" are extremely rare.
And you even say that the fire codes were revised.
But you are on the other hand absolutely sure that there was no conspiracy.
Is this correct?
How can you be so sure about that?
Maybe the fires were not so random after all that they destroyed one support that made the whole building collapse?
Do you believe in coincidences?
Maybe to get a Christmas bonus.