Martin Sheen: 9/11 Questions 'Unanswered,' Building 7 'Very Suspicious'

[ocpagu]

24. There's nothing in common between Tacoma Bridge and WTC events.

There are films of Tacoma Bridge collapsing that do show the action of the wind. It collapses exactly the way you would expect a bridge collapsing due to the wind. There's nothing to dispute, really. And never heard anybody arguing it was sabotaged. Besides, there are other examples of bridges collapsing due to wind, and they are more than a few (Amarube bridge, Angers Bridge, etc.).

But there's no example of a highrise collapsing due to fire at all, anywhere in the world and at any time in history. There are dozens and dozens of examples of older highrises that burned much longer than WTC7 and are still standing nowadays. So, you have no options: you have to concede that WTC7 is a unique, extraordinary event. So, don't bother playing the "I'm smarter than you, so I understand what happened" card. It's easy to claim you "do understand" what happened, but, the fact is: you don't have historical examples to present and you had to rely in a computer model to start been taken seriously.

So don't try to invert rules here: those disputing the official explanation are the ones who rely on empirical data and historical examples of highrise fires. You guys rely in a extravagant and exotic report defying logic and physics made by a governamental agency and a bunch of "experts" (?) that you claim to represent "the technical community".

Well, since "the technical community" does not exist as a factual organization... you can't appeal to it as some kind of "authority". I also guess you can not prove that the "experts" and people from NIST who take this fairy tale seriously are indeed more qualified than those who are disputing it.