Actually yes, no cascading explosions no explosives period. None are heard on any recordings. We have had this discussion a million times. The amount of explosives to take down a build would be audible for miles. Millions upon millions of NYers would have heard it and it would be on every recording of it. It is on none.

There is a reason none of the theories you support are in any scientific journals. Even the foremost expert on fire and combustion is against you. But I guess you know better than him..

Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.

Research Areas

Flame theory, combustion in turbulent flows, asymptotic methods in combustion, fire research, reactions in boundary layers, other areas of combustion and fluid dynamics.
Current Research Topics

Prediction of NOx Emissions from Large Diesels.
Theory of Flames with Real Chemistry.
High-Pressure Combustion of Binary Fuel Sprays.
Droplet Burning Experiments in the Space Shuttle.
Experimental and Theoretical Studies of Fuel Droplets and Flames Subject to Straining Flows.
Stretched Diffusion Flames in von Karman Swirling Flows.
Compressible Turbulent Reactive Flows.
Catalytic Combustion Fundamentals.
Fundamentals of Acoustic Instability in Liquid-Propellant Rockets.

http://maeresearch.ucsd.edu/williams/

Any minute now it should be turning to dust and collapsing at free fall speed.........

your lack of logical/critical thinking is astounding....

i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either...

studying Fuzzy Logic?
How many times does it need to be said that it did NOT fall at Freefall-Speed!
What on "NOT FREEFALL" do you NOT understand?

to parallel this Fire with the WTC-Fires is laughable,something only Gladys Kravitz would do!
You trying to do it shows that you have very little Understanding of the Principles of Engineering,and Explosives!
You are comparing Pineapples and Peanuts!

Granted no plane hit it but the flawed 911 report cites the fires for the cause of the collapse. Lets see this fire looks to be at least ten times worse.

the temperature from the burning furniture is just as hot as 10,000 gallons of burning jet fuel? and i know you know that area where the jet fuel was burning was a lot smaller than that, so that would increase the temperature...

this guessing-Game isn't even funny anymore now!
You are comparing Peanuts,which is a Legume,and Pineapples,which is a Bromeliacea,with each other!

I believe what I see not what I am told to see. DUH

if you don't know what your seeing, or can't interpret it correctly, then it doesn't really matter...

Tell me something hot shot........if there was NO explosives in Building 7, why didn't they test for em in the official story before coming to the conclusion there weren't any? What were they afraid of? If there was none, surely the test would have shown that right? The fact that they didn't says to me the cat was watching the hen house.

more of that incredible deducting skills i see...so.... because they didn't look for any means they used them?...

wow...

For the same reason I mentioned. It was a scientific impossibility. For the exact things I stated in my post. Yet you also seem to think you know more than the scientist I mentioned. Please give your credentials so we can compare them to his.

even if they had tested for every explosive under the sun you would just come up with some other half a$$ed story..

well.. hot shot... if they knew it wasn't a laser beam shot from mars that reflected off the moon and then triangulated to pulse weapons that used the beams of energy and created an earthquake that made it look like 2 planes hitting the towers.. why didn't they investigate it? what were they afraid of?

That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.)

So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe.

All that blah blah blah so called "scientific" double talk does not answer the question as to why, if the collapse of building 7 was so unusual, and so rare, and so extraordinary, why did certain people seem to know that Building #7 was coming down in advance and why did the media report that building 7 had fallen before it had actually fallen? Are we living in the twilight zone?

Was it a Time travel vortex?

As for the loud sounds supposedly that should have been "audible for miles...." how do I know they were not using a different kind of explosive material that did not make so much noise? Also, I've seen building demolished in Las Vegas, and the explosions were not "audible for miles." I've heard truck tires blow out that were louder.

You sure put a lot of faith is these alleged scientists.

Why don't you study what sound is and how and why it travels. Then maybe you can figure this one out.

No, you aren't getting it. They SAID in the official story that there were no explosives found in the rubble of Building 7. But they NEVER TESTED for them! How exactly can you have an honest conclusion if you don't test for what you say isn't there?? Fact of the matter is they had a bias to conclude there was no explosive residue before they ever started the investigation. Why else would they say there was nothing there when they never tested for what they said wasn't? The whole thing was rigged, it was not a true unbiased investigation.