BE-related: WTC 7

[David Morris]

First of all, you don't respond to my main point: controlled demolition
(implosion) isn't possible in an occupied office tower without EVERYONE
seeing the explosives being placed.  It can't get more simple than that.
Do you care to respond?

Second, your experts are highly suspect.

David Morris

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 3:52 PM Thomas Eckhardt <thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de>
wrote:

> Am 26.05.2020 um 19:48 schrieb David Morris:
>
> > I've said it before:  Controlled demolition (implosion) requires
> explosives
> > at columns that can't be hidden in an occupied building, and they can't
> be
> > installed overnight.  That conspiracy is just BS.
>
> Sherlock Holmes' reply: "How often have I said to you that when you have
> eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
> the truth?"
>
> The UAF report has eliminated the impossible by proving the blindingly
> obvious: WTC 7 could not have collapsed the way it did because of office
> fires. Whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
>
> NIST has until August 15 to respond to a request for correction based on
> the UAF report:
>
> 'Family members of those who died on September 11, 2001, joined building
> experts earlier today in submitting a “request for correction” to the
> National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its 2008
> report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.'
>
> 'If NIST elects not to take corrective action, it must provide a
> “point-by-point response to any relevant data quality arguments
> contained in the request.” The request notes that if NIST does not
> provide a point-by-point response, NIST will have denied the request “in
> an arbitrary and capricious manner,” which would set the stage for legal
> action to force compliance.'
>
> https://www.ae911truth.org/nist
>
>