I've been dealing with you "innocent questioners" for almost five years now. The one thing that ALL of you have in common is that the very questions you ask are lies in themselves, and you either don't know that, or you do know it and don't care. I don't know YOU very well, but after examining the "questions" you've asked so far, I have to conclude that, just like ALL the others before you, you're acting out of:
A. Sheer ignorance
B. Willful ignorance
C. A sick need for attention and control of the discussion.
I was about to put you in the first category last night, but since I now see that you've moved right on into recovered passports and living hijackers (as is typical), I've decided you properly belong in the second or third. That would make you either a non-serious time-waster, or a liar.
Again. The question you posted in #140 was a lie:
So let me ask you: Do you have a reasonable explanation for why a 46 floor 600 ft tall building like WTC 7, which was shielded by WTC 5 and 6
(both of which had extensive fire damage but did not collapse)
collapsed in and on itself
(Someday, maybe one of you conspiracy fools will be able to tell me where you got the idea that modern skyscrapers are designed to do anything OTHER than collapse straight down, and why you think they should behave as your imaginations dictate instead---but I won't hold my breath)
even though it was not hit by a plane
No, you idiot, it was hit by this:
and only had minor fires on only two of it's floors?
From the south:
From the east:
From the west:
I asked you the questions I did in order to determine whether you had knowingly posted a lie, or had merely read the lie somewhere else and stupidly swallowed it up like ice cream. I also wanted to see if it would somehow dawn on you that, if your premises and assumptions in that question were shown to be completely wrong, then just MAYBE all your other questions were based on flawed premises and untruths as well.
You failed on both counts.
Who is the Father of Lies, streetpreacher?