Justin Case wrote:

"Bryan Olson" wrote:

Justin Case wrote:

[...]

What about those 'squibs' going off up the side of WTC7 just before it

came

down,
or just before they 'pulled' it ?

That's you pretending to know what you don't, again. Real
engineers see a progressive failure. And "squibs", up *one*
corner of a building is not how controlled demolition does
it.

I know what I saw. Not pretending anything.

In this case we all saw the same video, so we can tell that you
your "molten steel" description is unjustified. Now think what
would happen if you were there to see it, made the bad report,
but we but we did *not* have the video. We'd have another wrong
eye-witness report, another false clue.

See how the 9/11 "inside-job" bit works? People see and hear
bits of the story -- some right, some wrong -- and fool
themselves into thinking they know far more than they do. I was
surprised that the buildings collapsed, but I'd have to be an
idiot to think I could reliably predict the physical
consequences of events radically unlike any that had happened
before.

From the angle of the camera
one can't see if squibs were going up the other corners or not. What it does
show
is that squibs were going off on the side in view.

I can see three corners of the building. The progressive
failure, that you mis-identify as "squibs", happens on exactly
one of the three visible corners.

The evidence is there for
you to deny
all you want to. Whether or not it is how controlled demolition is supposed
to happen,
whether it is non standard or not, does not change the fact that they were
indeed present.

Because "Justin Case", the guy who knows that Rupert Murdoch
controls 90% of the media also knows there must of been squibs,
to produce the effect that real engineers identify otherwise.