I still don't get the squib thing, I guess, and I do not recall "squibs" racing down the towers but massive floor-by-floor expulsions of smoke and paper and dust. But it seems perfectly obviously to me that if one building is pancaking from the top down, and another building is pancaking from the bottom up, that THAT is the reason you think the squibs, if they exist and if what they appear to be doing matters at all, may look like they're racing DOWN in the top-to-bottom collapse and UP in the bottom-to-top collapse. Doesn't it to you?
Anyway, I don't know what pictures you've seen of #7, but I don't know how you could look at any pictures of #7's southern face (short side of the trapezoid, remember) from the afternoon of 9/11 and not conclude that it was burning like a mofo.
If you are serious, I will find and post what few photos I have.
If you're not serious, and instead are the typical 9/11 doubter that gets sexually aroused by obsessively asking the same questions over and over on different forums, please don't waste my time. I am a married woman now and I don't want to play that.
Do you at least admit that #5 and #6 were not "shielding" #7, and that there's really no mystery as to why a tall thin building might sustain different and more fatal damage than a short, wide, and long building right in front of it?
Your answer will tell me a lot.