9/11 - WTC 7 collapse

[Anonymous No.11535377]

>https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/university-report-on-911-building-collapse-contradicts-official-conclusions-301029854.html
>https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7

If the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was not caused by fires, then by WHAT was it caused, /sci/?

[Anonymous No.11535392]

>>11535377
It was caused by fires and damage from falling debris. Faulty premise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OClixCTdDw

[Anonymous No.11535441]

>>11535392
>imagine believing this in 2020

[Anonymous No.11535445]

>>11535377
Anyone who was alive at the time knows that it was the only building in New York effected and sadly destroyed by the Millenium Bug. You're showing your age Zoomer.

[Anonymous No.11535447]

>>11535441
>imagine believing this in 2020

Prove it was not caused by fires and damage from falling debris. Occam’s Razor favors no silly conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.11535449]

>>11535441
I know, who would believe a paper with fake graphics and that claims to disprove something while only discussing one example of that thing?

[Anonymous No.11535456]

>>11535445
I chuckled.

[Anonymous No.11535470]

Having a serious discussion of WTC 7 is no longer possible on the internet. Accept it and move on. No one even died in the building!

[Anonymous No.11535472]

>>11535447
Small, delimited office fires and basically no damage due to falling debrees brought it down. Banker's trust building has a huge gaping hole on its front yet it was still standing.

[Anonymous No.11535501]

>>11535472
>Small, delimited office fires and basically no damage due to falling debrees
Source?

>Banker's trust building has a huge gaping hole on its front yet it was still standing.
So?

[Anonymous No.11535524]

https://youtu.be/u1CZmtR8gno

[Anonymous No.11535534]

>>11535501
>source?
every single video available of the wtc 7
>so?
so the theory of the debris has to be discarded, since the two adjacent buildings don't even have damage from debris

[Anonymous No.11535560]

>>11535534
Maybe WTC 7 was hit by debris and the two adjacent buildings (Verizon, US Post Office) just weren't. It seems unintuitive, but it might've happened.

[Anonymous No.11535562]

>>11535534
>every single video available of the wtc 7
How does a video tell you the extent of the fires and damage inside?

>so the theory of the debris has to be discarded, since the two adjacent buildings don't even have damage from debris
What does that have to do with the Bankers Trust building and how does that imply the theory of debris has to be discarded? Are you now saying the building wasn't hit by debris because the one's next to it were not?

You're not arguing logically.

[Anonymous No.11535564]

>>11535562
So magic debris can hit only one bulding and leave the other two unharmed. Sounds logic to me
>how does a video tell you the extent of the fire
did you seriously ask this?
>>11535560
>seems unintuitive
see above

[Anonymous No.11535566]

>>11535562
>How does a video tell you the extent of the fires and damage inside?
If fires are visible on one floor, why shouldn't they be visible on the other floors, too?

[Anonymous No.11535579]

>>11535564
When I was young a friend of mine fell out of a tree and died. So by your logic every time anyone ever falls out of a tree they must logically die every time. In fact we can conclude that because some people fall out of trees and survive my friend must not have died.

That's your logic, correct?

[Anonymous No.11535581]

If fires brought down WTC 7, why don't they use fires to take down other buildings? It'd be much easier and cheaper than explosives.

[Anonymous No.11535583]

>>11535579
How do you know, WTC 7 was damaged by debris, at all? What's your evidence for this claim?

[Anonymous No.11535601]

>>11535579
I did not want to resort to this, but those fucking kike tactics are really stupid. That has nothing to do with the topic we were discussing.

[Anonymous No.11535613]

>>11535601
Okay. Just look at the logic.

Some buildings survive being struck by debris, therefore debris cannot cause a building to fall.

Some people survive falling out of trees, therefore falling out of trees cannot kill you. So what killed my friend?

The logic is identical.

[Anonymous No.11535632]

>>11535613
I understand now but see, if two adjacent building have no damage from debris, and the only one struck from them survived no problem, how come wtc7 collapsed? it's not like debris had a preferential path to follow and decided to strike the building

[Anonymous No.11535656]

>>11535441
>>imagine believing this in 2001

funny you people are americans

[Anonymous No.11535662]

>>11535447
>Prove it was not caused by fires and damage from falling debris
If so, then in America they build from shit and rotten sticks.
This is true? No? Well, that’s the answer ...

[Anonymous No.11535665]

>>11535377
flight 93 hit WTC 7 and made it fall due to jew fuel fires.

[Anonymous No.11535667]

>>11535447
>>11535613
and by the way look at wtc5 and 6, which were directly under the rubble and have huge gaping holes but did not collapse

[Anonymous No.11535683]

>>11535564
>So magic debris can hit only one bulding and leave the other two unharmed.
It was the closest of the the three to the North tower. Also debris did hit the other towers but were not large enough to cause much damage. Also we have video showing debris hitting WTC 7 and the resulting damage. So I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue about.

>did you seriously ask this?
Did you seriously try to avoid answering this?

[Anonymous No.11535688]

[Anonymous No.11535697]

>>11535566
>If fires are visible on one floor, why shouldn't they be visible on the other floors, too?
Who said they weren't visible on other floors? I asked how a video tells you the extent of the fires and damage inside. I didn't ask how you can see fires from the outside.

[Anonymous No.11535715]

>>11535583

[Anonymous No.11535719]

>>11535683
>it was the closest
same asthe verizon buiding and merrill lynch
>Did you seriously try to avoid answering this?
you can't answer such a fucking stupid question

[Anonymous No.11535720]

>>11535581
>If fires brought down WTC 7, why don't they use fires to take down other buildings?
Maybe because you don't want smoke and toxic chemicals everywhere? Maybe because it's easier to control explosives? Maybe you're retarded?

[Anonymous No.11535722]

>>11535632
>I understand now but see, if two adjacent building have no damage from debris, and the only one struck from them survived no problem, how come wtc7 collapsed?
Doesn't that question answer itself? If the other buildings were not hit by debris then there is no damage and no fire to cause a collapse.

>it's not like debris had a preferential path to follow and decided to strike the building
Yeah it's almost like debris falls randomly and is most likely to hit the closest buildings to its source.

Have you ever taken an IQ test?

[Anonymous No.11535726]

>>11535719
>same asthe verizon buiding and merrill lynch
Prove debris did not hit those buildings.

>you can't answer such a fucking stupid question
You can, you just won't because it destroys your argument.

[Anonymous No.11535833]

>>11535722
>Implying it was the closest
Look at that fucking picture I posted >>11535472 and tell me it's the closest, and not just as close as lynch and Verizon. Also take a look at building 5 and 6 and tell me how they did not collapse.
>>11535726
Of course they were hit but the damage is negligible, no building suffered fatal damage, not even building 5 and 6 which were directly underneath.
How can debris be ejected with such a force in a single direction to make a single building collapse?

[Anonymous No.11535852]

>>11535447
Occam's razor is a rule of thumb, not a law. It disfavours pizzagate, the internal conspiracy to fuck bernie sanders in the DNC and MK-ULTRA, but we all know those were very real.

[Anonymous No.11536116]

>>11535833
>Implying it was the closest
Are you incapable of reading?

>Also take a look at building 5 and 6 and tell me how they did not collapse.
They were destroyed by debris. They didn't completely collapse because they weren't as large as WTC 7. Again, what is your argument? That WTC7 was not hit by debris? We already know it was from pictures. That debris has to fall on and affect every building equally? No, it doesn't. Make an argument, retard.

>Of course they were hit but the damage is negligible, no building suffered fatal damage, not even building 5 and 6 which were directly underneath.
Yeah totally not fatal damage in pic related. They're still using this building today. Fucking retard.

>How can debris be ejected with such a force in a single direction to make a single building collapse?
Why do you think debris is ejected in all directions uniformly?

[Anonymous No.11536373]

>>11536116
Arguing with kikes is pointless.
Look at the photo I posted above and tell me why building 7 is the only one to have collapsed on that side of the road while suffering the same damage as every other building when even buildings standing right under the towers were still standing

[Anonymous No.11536436]

>>11536373
>Look at the photo I posted above and tell me why building 7 is the only one to have collapsed on that side of the road while suffering the same damage as every other building when even buildings standing right under the towers were still standing
Because it didn't suffer the same damage as every other building, retard.