> The probem, Seger, is that a steel framed building has never before in history collapsed due to fire.
Why is your fuzzy thinking my problem? In the first place, you need to say that no "tall" steel building has ever collapsed "completely" due to fire, so you need to specify at what height they acquire the magic invulnerability and what percentage of collapse is acceptable.
In the second place, no building constructed like WTC7 has ever undergone a 7-hour unfought fire. According to NIST's hypothesis, the problem with the WTC7 design was that long-span floor beams framed into a long girder at two different angles, and that girder itself framed into column 79 at an angle, yet all the connections to interior columns were designed only to carry the gravity loads, not the thermal expansion of this asymmetric framing. Those "shear" connections also explain why the collapse propagated: When one end of a beam dropped, the other end easily broke free, leaving that column unrestrained laterally so it could also buckle and fail.
Why should I be impressed that "truthers" who don't even understand that hypothesis, much less have a credible refutation, offer arguments that begin with the belief that all steel buildings are designed the same, and don't understand why comparisons to other fires is invalid? Why should I not laugh when such people try to tell me that their theories are "scientific?"
But the real problem is that your argument boils down to: "This never happened before, therefore magical silent explosives is a better explanation." It's funny that you would even offer that argument but then ignore that magical silent explosives have never brought down a building, either. If the topic is why rational people don't take WTC7 controlled demolition theories seriously, then you aren't helping your cause.
= new reply since forum marked as read