Originally posted by torontoguy123
Theres no reason why that building should of collapsed and when you consider what kind of information that building would of contained, it makes it even more suspicious.

WTC 7 had already suffered a significant amount of damage from debris from when the plane hit the North Tower and also when the North Tower collapsed. There was no way that building could have stayed standing while suffering the damage that it did.

Originally posted by Junkheap
WTC 7 had already suffered a significant amount of damage from debris from when the plane hit the North Tower and also when the North Tower collapsed. There was no way that building could have stayed standing while suffering the damage that it did.

And there is no way any asymmetrical damage can cause a building to fall into its own footprint...

Originally posted by ANOK


And there is no way any asymmetrical damage can cause a building to fall into its own footprint...

NIST concluded that the damage did not play a significant role in the collapse. So, you may be correct.

The damage did, however allow the fires to spread from floor to floor much easier.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by ANOK


And there is no way any asymmetrical damage can cause a building to fall into its own footprint...

NIST concluded that the damage did not play a significant role in the collapse. So, you may be correct.

The damage did, however allow the fires to spread from floor to floor much easier.

edit on 15-6-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

Sigh, fire also can not cause a symmetrical collapse into its footprint.

Try again?

Originally posted by Darkwing01

Anybody who can look at that picture and think that for all intents and purposes all did fall in the footprint must be some kind of blind.

Can't disagree with that really.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by ANOK


And there is no way any asymmetrical damage can cause a building to fall into its own footprint...

NIST concluded that the damage did not play a significant role in the collapse. So, you may be correct.

The damage did, however allow the fires to spread from floor to floor much easier.

edit on 15-6-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

Sigh, fire also can not cause a symmetrical collapse into its footprint.

Try again?

Well the fact it did on 911 proves you wrong, you think the sky's red too? lol

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Well the fact it did on 911 proves you wrong, you think the sky's red too? lol

LOL that is not a good argument. That's like saying Jesus is real because the Bible says so.

There is no proof that any building on 911 fell from natural causes, do you not even understand the argument that's been going on for ten years?

No building has ever, or can ever, fall into it's own footprint from asymmetrical damage and fires. Pancake collapse can happen, but none of the WTC buildings show evidence of this. They all show that there had to be another energy acting on them in order to overcome resistance and momentum conservation. So no you can not include them in the 'no building has fell into its footprint, or steel building globally collapse, from fire'.

C'mon man get a clue and go learn something before you attempt to blindly dismiss it. You're no different to the other OSers, you support the OS first and then try to find argument to support your belief. Pretty much the same way the NIST report was created, find a reason for a pre-decided conclusion.

whoever argues this

is a Globalist