Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
That was a scientific proof!? I really don't think so, it wouldn't stand up to a GSCE level of scrutiny let alone expert analysis. If you are to convince the world of a demolition theory, it is not necessary to know 'how' explosives were placed, but how much and where in the building to create the collapse is surely the bare minimum of information required in order to support the theory. The size of the columns, the details of the construction are available, so why have none of these experts demonstrated exactly what would be required to bring this building down in a controlled demolition?
The reason no one has done it is that it would painfully unravel the theory, better to edit a few video's and photos, concentrate on a transcript or two.
So is that all you have to offer as a response to a very detailed study of the single point theory of the collapse of WT7? I'm actually disappointed, I honestly thought that as you've been consistently inviting debate, and as I've posted information regarding reinforced concrete exploding under heat (re fire under M1 early this year), plus other reports and comparative evidence (not just videos which is a medium that is far easier to distort information), that given your convictions, you'd have more to go on.