Some of you guys if you looked at yourselves from a different angle you would be amazed at how ridiculous your claims sound. If I had not read it with my own eyes, I would not believe that I am being accused of sounding like a theist for having blind faith in the Law of Conservation of Energy. But because I can not point a finger at who
placed the explosive charges, and because I can not describe in detail how
they managed to rig the demolition, that is seen as sufficient proof that demolition could not have happened
But, when two buildings across the street are struck by airplanes, each plane carrying 10 thousand gallons of jet fuel, and both buildings across the street come tumbling down, that is cited as sufficient proof that the Law of Conservation of Energy was suspended at Ground Zero on 9/11. If you said Allah waved his magic wand and spoke, "Let there be a suspension of the laws of nature" it would hardly be more plausible. (You might get some muslims to believe you though.)
Consider it refuted. Move onto your next "point", please.
Wow. Consider it refuted. No reasoning, no logic, no evidence, but Thumpalumpacus refutes the laws of physics, and presto, they are refuted. Do you realize how intelligent that statement sounds? Because Dr. Sunder (leader of the investigation of WTC 7's demise at the National Institute of Standards and Technology) clearly stated that freefall could not have occurred in WTC 7 because there were structural components resisting the fall.
Sure, fires that burn hot enough can cause steel to loose some of its strength. I never claimed otherwise. It is a gradual process that causes the steel to get weaker and weaker with the passage of time. Theoretically it could cause a building to collapse, even though it never happened before 9/11 and never since. But steel does not instantaneously loose all of its strength at once. Full support to zero support in a tiny fraction of a second. Only some type of incindiary device can do that. Furthermore, pointing out that one side of the building was burning fiercely while the other side was relatively unharmed only supports the claim that the building could not have come down symetrically if not for cutter devices.
The reason I do not mention the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, or the one at the Pentagon, or even the two that crashed into the Twin Towers is that I do not have conclusive irrefutable proof of anything related to those planes at this time. What I do
have is conclusive irrufutable proof that WTC 7 came down at freefall acceleration, thus intention controlled demolition.
I have furnished you with the proof. If your faith in what you have believed for years prevents you from accepting the facts of life, fine. Go on living in your fantasy world.
But remember... Next time you try to reason with a theist you will no longer be able to use science to prove your point, because you have refuted science in this discussion. Can't have your science and refute it too!