Justice

That they should have been at the same temperature. The damage was already done to the towers when the jet fuel burned off. Yes and that "start" was hot enough to bend the beams.

The reason why the twin towers collapsed was because of the jet fuel. That's the story. WTC 7 didn't have any jet fuel. Plus other surrounding buildings closer than WTC 7 to the north and south tower didn't collapse that day. Why didn't those collapse as well? They got hit by debris. They had fires. I don't agree.

Oh, brother! Can we try to keep things in context, please? It burnt up in those towers, it didn't somehow magically transfer into building 7. It did its damage while burning away in the twin towers. With that being said, tell him.

Hey, DC, care to step in here? He'll believe jet fuel burns much hotter than standard fire coming from you. I'd just be wasting my time.

Jet fuel burns hotter than standard fire, boss.

Just as outrageous as a 50 story building collapsing in 9 hours.

You guys keep asking me these questions like I'm supposed to know the answers. I don't know, man, these guys like to hide in the open or something. You've heard what they say about the power of denial, right?

TF am I supposed to know??? Idk, maybe the guys that sell the weapons to go to war? You know who pays for that, right? You guys actually believe fire and debris can bring down a 50 story building just because "it would take too many people to pull that off". Someone would tell, right? If ppl are that baddass I doubt they'd get snitched on.

Lol. Bad joke.

You guys don't believe me, but I would really accept any rational and logical explanation. You guys think you gave me tons, but really you didn't. At the end of the day you expect me to believe 3 unprecedented events took place in one day and I just can't. People argue the jet fuel burned hot enough for the beams to give. I'll buy that. Sounds reasonable. When it comes to WTC 7 that didn't happen. It wasn't jet fuel burning at a hotter temperature than normal fire this time. It was just fire. Fire doesn't burn got enough for that. These are facts. Really? Maybe you're wrong about him. Interesting you chose beer. Why didn't you say coffee? Lol

Silverstein is quite the expert. He suggested it first. People like me? Specify please.

You're way off. Go ahead and listen to it again. "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." No, I haven't, but I'll take a look. Thanks. Money money money money.

Didn't they say they built the twin towers to withstand a airplane strike into the building? So I guess those buildings were built to last. Maybe by the time they got to building seven I guess they just said screw if. Let's make this one do that it can't take a fire. Sounds reasonable to me. Smh. Pull it is a demolition term, is it not? So from where I stand it makes more sense to me it's for demolition purposes. To you it doesn't, because you actually think fire took it down.

Oh yeah. He's not a firefighter and yet he's giving the call to pull them?

Two can play that game. He refers to firefighters as "it". When not pull them? That make sense to you?

Never mind. It's a fact many buildings have been on fire much longer than 9 hours and haven't collapsed. Somehow fire worked different in WTC 7 in your book. I see you never addressed the fact the owner of the building used a demolition term.

Doesn't take 1000s.

A few guys with thermite and access to the foundation is thousands? Answer my question. Why even go through that expensive and timely method of demolition if fire will do the trick in 9 hours?? So you're saying I can't tell if two building are going down with the same speed? Pros need to know more than just speed, I'd assume.

I'm an expert at demolition. Just use fire and about 9 hours.

I doubt that amount of people were involved. I think it takes a lot less than any of us know.

Video analysis, bud. It ain't that hard. Excuse me, your highness, the all knowing. All praise Tom. TF would I know? I'm not capable of watching to buildings collapsing side by side on a video.

Once again. I'm not disputing the planes took down the towers. It's obvious it did, but a building behind it by a great distance? WTC 7 didn't have a jet fuel burning in it. And why bother going through all that trouble of demolishing a building with wiring and explosives when all it takes is a fire and 9 hours??? Thermite would be placed on the metal beams at the foundation I assume.

Who are they and why couldn't they? This if for the other guys: How about this? If fire can bring down buildings then why in the hell do you waste months and God knows how many dollars setting up demolition?? Fire is cheap. Now run tell that! Imagine that. After all these years we could've just light the B word on fire and wait a few hours. Stupid us.

I see your point but the explosive sounds were greatly reported that day. Plus this video footage isn't the same as WTC 7's in regards to proximity and other factors. Besides, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Many people speculate thermite was used. How much noise does that make?

Yeah. I think it's possible. More possible than fire and debris bringing down a 50 story building demolition style.