There is no evidence of anything other than fire induced collapse.
You are illustrating, in spades, Quag, what I have long described. You guys are scared ****less of discussing anything because you will catch yourselves out so quickly, just as you have done in this crazily disjointed "post" of yours. A body can't make heads nor tails of what you are mumbling on about.
You lie, in a baldfaced fashion, above. There is a two year study, of which you are fully aware, that says there is ZERO chance of WTC 7 coming down by fire. You guys don't address NIST's many lies which have been placed squarely in front of you many times - no shear studs; non-composite floors; no web stiffeners; 5.25 inches changed to 6.25 inches when NIST realized they needed more beam movement. NIST created a fiction and moved the goalposts numerous times to accomodate their "science".
So we know there was fires that lasted 7 hours and that the firefighters saw signs of instability before the collapse.
Unless you have evidence that it was something other than fire then the only logical conclusion is that it was the fires. Because ALL the evidence points to the fires.
Another bald faced lie. There were not fires that lasted 7 hours, there were normal office fires that burned as normal office fires do, for about 20 minutes until the available fuel is used up, then they move on. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that a 20 minute fire on insulated steel could cause much heating at all, let alone enough to cause catastrophic failure, AT FREE FALL SPEED! Simply ludicrous, right Quag?
NOT FINDING SOMETHING IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT IT WASNT FIRE INDUCED COLLAPSE
But not having any evidence for it being fire induced collapse is proof that it wasn't fire induced collapse. Below normal office fires cannot magically cause WTC7 to fall at free fall when much worse fires have never caused any collapse, ever! Let alone the absolutely impossible symmetrical free fall collapse.
So either you dont do logic (very strong probability you are a truther after all) or you based your conclusions on something OTHER than the evidence
