"We have been told that an unprecedented event has occurred, that a fire has caused a skyscraper to collapse, this is the first time in skyscraper history."
"In science we are taught about the repeatability of an experiment, and if you cant repeat the results reliable and consistently, then the scientific premise is probably flawed."
"My next statement is a fact, not an opinion.
THERE IS NO WAY FOR WT7 TO COLLAPSE IN THAT WAY DUE TO FIRE ALONE.
It is physically impossible for a building of that quality, construction and calibre to fail in such a spectacular way"
John Risk this is why you guys are so easy to out debate, so easy to expose your inherent limitations as to the very reason why you guys believe in absurdity. Let me explain ...
Your making a statement claiming its a fact, not opinion that it's physically impossible for WTC7 to fall from fire alone. Then you use logic to back up that statement, a flawed logical assumption I may add. Firstly logic isn't proof of anything, logic is basically valid reasoning, unfortunately using points of reasoning is so often subjective. You conspiracy theorists should know that, subjectivity is something you guys are world champions at. So in essence you haven't provided any proof by providing tangible evidence to back up your claim.
Secondly your point you used to backup your statement that it's fact WTC7 didn't fall from fire alone because no other skyscraper has collapsed totally from fire is flawed. Putting it quite simply no other building on the planet now or ever has been built to the exact same specifications as WTC7. Further more no skyscraper on fire has ever had the same fire characteristics as WTC7. Fire point of origin, combustible materials, lack of water etc, just to name a few.
So if you want to prove something didn't happen because it's never happened before, well then you need to replicate the exact same conditions and specifications. Quite clearly you can't do that, not unless you point out a building with the exact same fire characteristics and building specifications as WTC7 that survived intact.
One last thing in regards to WTC7. Fire wasn't the only factor that weakened it. A 110 story building collapsing on it helped seal its fate as well. Check out the links below ....
(At the 1 minute mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?playnext=1&index=0&feature=PlayList&v=tK9MmoVaO5U&list=PL7B30D07D22F4F8F3
A for your figures relating to how hot the fires were and what temperature is needed to melt steel, well its fasical! You don't need to melt steel to weaken it, you only need to heat it up. I learnt that in primary school. You guys keep blindly using the same figures etc. Can't seem to educate you guys that steel starts to weaken from the point of getting heated up, not at its melting point.
