@izzythepush,
Let's do this scientifically, logically, okay, Izzy.
How is that of any importance, of greater importance than the fact that a University of Alaska PhD, forensic engineer says that the chance of WTC7 coming down as a result of normal office fires - NIST's conclusion is "zero"?
===============
[everything in bold is mine]
Daniel Sheehan [lawyer]: "On a scale of 1 to a 100, ... how probable do you think it is, or how possible do you think it is that this building
[WTC7] could have collapsed simply because of the fires?"
Professor Hulsey: "Zero."
To see it for yourself, go to, 13:09 of the following video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf1ewgbq4fY
=====================
Professor Hulsey reviewing his study's findings of NIST's WTC7 study:
[everything in bold is mine]
"We can't find any justification that it
[WTC7] could have come down by fire.
...
So that contradicts the findings of the NIST report
[that WTC7 came down as a result of "normal office fires"]
... we found, which is quite interesting, no big surprise, the building
[WTC7] is not coming straight down, it's actually leaning to the west as it's coming down, ... so remember the building is not symmetrical, nor is it built to have symmetrical behavior it's actually built stiffer on one side than it is on the other.
So it's gonna have to be forced to come straight down, even a symmetrical structure, for god's sake, isn't built perfectly so nothing is ever gonna come straight down, unless you force it to do that."
The only buildings that are forced to come down are those that undergo explosive controlled demolition [or the French system verinage, which is another type of controlled demolition]
==========
You can hear Dr Hulsey's comments regarding the above quotes starting at 18:00 of the following video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf1ewgbq4fY