My point is that there are a series of things that significantly decrease the chances of burning debris getting into WTC 7
1. WTC 1 only had parts of about four floors ablaze when it collapsed so there was a limited amount of "burning debris".
2. The gypsum and concrete dust generated by the collapse would have smothered the fires shortly after the collapse initiated. Beachnut and Animal say this is impossible but don't provide any basis for their opinions.
3. The collapse would have caused conduction of heat to cooler material.
4. WTC 7 was 350 feet away from WTC 1, whose collapse was vertical. Gaining the required horizontal velocity to make the trip across to WTC 7 required large horizontal forces to be applied to debris that also happened to still be hot enough, in spite of the above, to start fires.
5. WTC 7's façade was not easy to simply fly through and now you and Jaydeehess are proposing that there was pathfinder debris that need to create a breach first. This has a very low probability of occurrence over ten floors of WTC 7.
6. The Verizon and Post Office buildings did not suffer penetration of their exteriors.
7. Although hit with some debris the Verizon and Post Office buildings were not set ablaze.
8. There is no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 until 1 hour and 47 minutes after the collapse of WTC 1.
The above show that the odds are extraordinarily low that the fires on ten floors of WTC 7 were generated by hot debris from WTC 1. It looks like WTC 7's fires were due to arson with the collapse of the towers blamed.
Now that's a serious disconnection from reality. NCSTAR 1-5A fig. 5-118 proves point 1 wrong. They were 63x63m (almost 4000m²) floors that were burning out of control. One of the biggest uncontrolled fires in buildings that has ever happened in history, if not the biggest, and you dismiss it as "limited amount". You need a reality check.
On points 2 and 3, the dust must cover the fuel pretty well. A moving cloud of dust is not as effective to put out flames. Especially if the moving cloud of dust includes the fuel. The winds provide oxygen to the burning debris. And even if we imagine that the fires could be put out by the dust, they could still smolder while flying. A smoldering piece of paper was enough to set WTC7 on fire, if it went right into the guts of the building through the gash opened by the impact. Remember that after the impact from the toppling piece of wall from WTC1 came the dust cloud.
Point 4 is silly. The dust cloud covered many more blocks, and fires were set past WTC7. Again, a reality check.
Point 5 is about the probability of occurrence of the building first getting a gash from the falling debris (reality check: it did) and then catching fire (reality check: debris set fire on many cars around and past WTC7). Non-starter.
On points 6 and 7, these buildings did not have a massive piece of debris hitting them. No reason for such penetration. And you will have to explain the status of the sprinkler system in those buildings before claiming that fires weren't started in them. It's possible they were started and extinguished.
On point 8, how do you take photographs of a building in the middle of a dust cloud, when you can barely see a guy who is 10m away from you?
The above shows how disconnected from reality your points are. You need to step back and rethink your claims.
