Oystein, your post here is either disingenuous or your understanding is flawed.
Mine? Hmm.
First, you need to understand that the Verizon building suffered much of its damage from the collapse of WTC 7, which it was right next to,
Certainly correct
not from the North Tower, which is the situation I was talking about.
Not? Your claim - got evidence?
The point is that, it along with the Post Office building had no fires,
I understood that point. I made another: That you made false claim when you claimed "small damage".
yet strangely two hours after the North Tower collapsed WTC 7 had ten floors on fire which the now discredited NIST WTC 7 report tried to claim was due to the collapse of the North Tower. This is even though
- the building was 350 feet away.
- there was massive amounts of gypsum dust being poured onto the four or five floors with fires in the North Tower when it collapsed.
- there is no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 for nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed.
- neither the Verizon or Post Office buildings had fires.
Well, I can't help it, but all that is reality as it was observed. Your point being?
As for your implication that charges cannot be shielded from fire, I would say they can, and that you have no idea and can't make that statement conclusively.
AE911T's "top European demolition expert" Danny Jowenko made that claim when explained why the twins could not possibly have been CDs. Did he have no idea?
There is also no need for wires with radio control. In addition, WTC 7 had 47 floors with 10 of them having been set on fire, so charges could be placed on floors where fires would not be set.
You claim that the core columns were blown up over eight (8) stories. I point out that there were fires on 7 and 8. There were also fires on 10 through ... ah too lazy to look up now - 13? The point being that this fire situation would preculde you from claiming eight (8) consecutive floors, unless you allow for floors 14-21, or higher (again, I won't bother to check if these floors were all sufficiently free from fires - you get my point, I hope). So why do you claim charges over eight (8) stories, rather than, say, six?
If you actually believe the fires in WTC 7 were caused by the collapse of the North Tower, please say
- why you think there was none in the Verizon or Post Office buildings.
Good luck? Generally speaking, the four faces of each tower fell outward perpendicular to the facade. The US Post Office building was mostly out of the way, but WTC7 was smack in the way of the north wall of Tower 1. You remember how many firefighters on the scene described the large gash that was ripped into the south face of Building 7 by toppling wall segments? I suppose that would have provided a convenient path for fiery debris to enter.
The Verizon had only a corner facing the WTC1 north face, and it seems to have had a stronger facade - to my best knowledge the walls did not rip open a large gash into the Verizon.
- how you think burning debris from four or five floors in the North Tower could stay lit with all of the gypsum raining on them during the collapse.
You are not seriously asking me to just accept your personal imagination and incredulity here, or are you??
- how you think this burning debris from the four or five fire floors in the North Tower could travel 350 feet to WTC 7.
Are you serious?? You have seen how wildly the towers fell all over the place? You have seen how high and how far the dust clouds travelled??
- why you think there was no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 for nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed.
Lack of cameras coupled with the fact that no tons of liquid accelerants were dumped into #7. This, too, is an appeal to incredulity.
