WTC Building 7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World...enter#Collapse

Yes, the building fell in 6.5 seconds, into its own 'footprint' without damaging surrounding structers and this was caused by a few floors burning over a few hour timespan.

Also, no steel was used from WTC 7 for investigation as it was all recycled. Why did building 3, 4, 5 and 6 all directly under the Twin Towers all suffer much more torrential damage fall? Building 3 was almost completely destroyed but was actually split in half, but still stood completely fine. This shit is 7th grade physics.

Saying Building 7 fell straight down, in perfect formation, took the route of MOST resistance and fell into itself from fires only is absolutely ludicrous.

from fires only

If actually read what the link points to, it doesn't say anything about it being "only" fire.

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing damage to the south face of the building.[4] The bottom portion of the building's south face was damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.[4] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.

8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors

So damage on 10 floors, combined with a few office fires is enough to make all of the support structures throughout that entire building simultaneously collapse? It's like you read my argument and only pick out portions that you can slightly argue against and then turn the entire argument into that. It's pretty annoying.

What I would do, is pick the other part and argue about that, using unrelated topics. What would you perfer, D3V? Me? Or K_A?

So damage on 10 floors, combined with a few office fires is enough to make all of the support structures throughout that entire building simultaneously collapse? It's like you read my argument and only pick out portions that you can slightly argue against and then turn the entire argument into that. It's pretty annoying.

I wasn't making an assessment either way, nor was I making an argument for or against you. I was simply pointing out that the facts say that it wasn't "just fire" like you keep saying, and suggesting that you do further reading to inform yourself of things you might not know.

Which, still, is avoiding the point. Does all of that combined constitute the entire structural integrity of the building, the 47-story skyscraper and have it all simultaneously fall to the ground, at free-fall speed?

Which, still, is avoiding the point. Does all of that combined constitute the entire structural integrity of the building, the 47-story skyscraper and have it all simultaneously fall to the ground, at free-fall speed?

Obviously it was enough to bring it down, as it fell.