One problem with this claim is that it necessarily requires affirmative support for both a
motive for CD - exactly
why should WTC 7 be deliberately destroyed? (none of the many explanations I have seen make any sense) - and for
opportunity - exactly
when and
how were the extensive and obvious building prep and explosive rigging done? (such as would be required to assure a relatively "neat" collapse). Another problem is that it requires explanations for the
lack of the very loud and distinct sounds of demolition charges going off, for the lack of any physical evidence of explosives and associated control mechanisms, and so on. Yet another problem is the host of other miscellaneous flaws and quirks with this scenario - why wait until the area around WTC 7 had been cleared to bring it down? why risk the additional complications and risk of discovery after destroying WTC 1 and 2 for essentially small incremental gain to the plot? how was the precise sequencing required for CD assured in a heavily damaged, burning building immersed in an ocean of RF emitters? and so on, and so on.
So, no, I can't at all agree that CD is "far more likely".
It has been proven hundreds of times to do to a building what was done to 7.
Make it fall down? True. And CD has also been proven to make structures fall
over as well as
down. And non-CD collapses have been proven to make structures fall
down as well as
over. So, while the collapse looks reasonably
like CD, that is no evidence that it
was CD.
Moreover, the claim made by so many that it's
obviously CD raises the following question: if it's so
obvious, why would the all-powerful evil geniuses do it that way, and not in a more "natural" way? Or simply not do it at all (see above)? And why do the vast majority of relevant authorities in academia and industry not blow the whistle for instant fame and fortune? It's not as if "truth" proclaimers are being hunted down by the gubmint - or if they are, the evil gubmint ninja assassin army is incompetent in a way staggeringly at odds with the grim, airtight efficiency of the rest of the conspiracy.
Or maybe they're just too busy knocking off all the scientists and engineers who were
just about to blow the whistle on the faked Apollo Moon landings.
As a firefighter, I need to point out that this statement is simply, categorically, inarguably, wrong. Fire can and has caused buildings to collapse - partially and totally; wood, steel, and concrete; small ones and large ones; down, out, and over.
(In another part of our county, an interior floor collapse due to fire dumped a three-man engine crew into the fire apartment. (We heard the Mayday call as we listened in quarters the other night.) Two of them are still hospitalized with burns and injuries. Maybe I should tell them they just imagined it?)
Of course, the statement is not really relevant anyway. Fire
alone was not the cause of WTC 7's collapse; a major contributor was the damage caused by a quarter-mile skyscraper falling against it (evidently forgetting to stay within its own footprint). The heavy structural damage, widespread unfought fires, various sounds coming from the building, and observations of the building itself coming out of line were
unambiguous collapse indicators observed by FDNY members (from the rank-and-file on up) long before it finally fell.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
