I'm not sure why "they" would have to "reframe" anything. WT7's "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster" discusses the very same issues (no jet fuel, first to collapse):
"This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a ta…
I'm not sure why "they" would have to "reframe" anything. WT7's "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster" discusses the very same issues (no jet fuel, first to collapse):
"This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. It was a more typical tall building in the design of
its structural system. It was not struck by an airplane. The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from those in the towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any
floor were not ignited simultaneously. Instead, the fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.
These other buildings did not collapse, while WTC 7 succumbed to its fires."
And then they say it was all part of a big conspiracy, right? They don't conclude that the fires caused the failure, do they, in the official report? They definitely say it was caused by LGM, Putin, and deep staters, working in congress with satanists wearing upside down crucifixes, right?
I want to add to my earlier comments. I now also like how these people read half of a report disproving their logic to support their logic by forgetting the other half of the report, with sound reasoning and rational conclusions, exists. It's the finest of cherry picking!
I'm not sure why "they" would have to "reframe" anything. WT7's "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster" discusses the very same issues (no jet fuel, first to collapse):
"This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. It was a more typical tall building in the design of
its structural system. It was not struck by an airplane. The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from those in the towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any
floor were not ignited simultaneously. Instead, the fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.
These other buildings did not collapse, while WTC 7 succumbed to its fires."
Maybe the building was actually just poorly made? Just look at Grenfell Tower in London.
And then they say it was all part of a big conspiracy, right? They don't conclude that the fires caused the failure, do they, in the official report? They definitely say it was caused by LGM, Putin, and deep staters, working in congress with satanists wearing upside down crucifixes, right?
I want to add to my earlier comments. I now also like how these people read half of a report disproving their logic to support their logic by forgetting the other half of the report, with sound reasoning and rational conclusions, exists. It's the finest of cherry picking!