Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[William Seger]

7. Not true

Your faulty argument amounts to saying that only a controlled demolition can produce zero resistance. Broken columns also produce zero resistance. You'd think that one of Gage's "more than 1500 architects and engineers" might explain to him what was happening during the 1.75 seconds of less-than-freefall immediately before that 2.4-second freefall, and what was happening inside the building during the 6 seconds before that. Gage persists in ignoring both of those phases of the collapse, despite their obvious importance to understanding why the building shell fell the way it did, and those of us who think Gage is a fraud think he deliberately does that simply because those events don't fit his controlled demolition assertion. On the other hand, the NIST theory accounts for what we see in all phases.

> NIST contradicted themselves when they said the free-fall was due to office fires. That is a physical impossibility. Office fires can't melt steel. It's a total joke.

If you're going to attempt to critique NIST's conclusions, I suggest you need to start with a much better understanding of what they are. Perhaps actually reading the report would help.

If the debate is over, then Gage lost, badly, and it's time to move on.