You are merely indulging in ad hominem because you can’t address the evidence.
I don’t have to address any evidence regarding the NIST report when I said I’m willing to ignore it and now asking for a superior explanation. You lack basic reading comprehension.
It looked like WTC 7 burned and collapsed due to fire damage. The cause is obviously fire damage.
You think what someone claims something looks like is acceptable evidence. It isn’t.
As I’ve been saying for a while: Robert’s arguments collapse under the weight of their own stupidity. External input is hardly required.
Me saying it looks like the building was on fire and collapsed due to fire damage is not evidence. The fact the building was on fire and collapsed is. The fact you do not understand this is proof you have very little ability to reason.
The attribution of cause is a claim that you need to support by showing precedent exists in the case of steel framed high rise buildings.
False. If I claim it looks like WTC 7 collapsed due to fire damage, the only evidence required is that the building was on fire and collapsed. That burden of proof has been met.
So you will now prove this claim by posting a link to a video of a steel-framed high-rise building collapsing due to fire with the speed, symmetry and totality of WTC 7, or concede that there are no other examples of steel-framed buildings collapsing “due to fire” that exhibit these characteristics.
I do not need to defend claims I have not made.
I didn’t ask you for an identical example. Any example showing speed, symmetry and totality in the collapse of a burning steel-framed high rise will do.
There is considerable precedent for steel-framed high rise buildings catching fire. None of them collapsed with speed, symmetry and totality in a manner remotely comparable to WTC 7. That is why you need to support your claim that the collapse was “obviously” caused solely by fire in this case.
You say the cause was “obviously” fire damage, but what is your experience of observing similar events that makes this so obvious to you and should make it obvious to other people?
The fact that fire warps and weakens steel when exposed to it and physical forces like gravity and heavy loads.
No-one is calling into question the fact that the building was on fire and collapsed. But you have avoided the burden of proof by begging the question of what caused the collapse, which is made obvious by the fact that you cannot point to a single similar collapse occurring among the many other examples of steel-framed high rise buildings catching fire.
So you will now concede that there are no other examples of steel-framed high-rise buildings collapsing “due to fire” that exhibit anything like the characteristics of speed, symmetry and totality observed in the case of WTC 7.
I do not need to concede claims I have not made. You’re only demonstrating your own stupidity here, jomper.
If you think fire wasn’t the sole cause or couldn’t have been the sole cause of the collapse of WTC 7, present your evidence for other causes.