Here are examples of what buildings look like when that have structural damage for various reasons. They topple. They do not implode. Implosion happens after demolition.

like i said before, you can discuss the structural damage, or the fire, but you never acknowledge the reality, which is both at once. you always lie by omission. always.

please pay attention and stop lying. wtc 7 was brought down by structural damage from debris, a long-buring fire, and unique construction, i have already posted that numerous times, and all you do is respond by stacking up another pile of lies and omissions.

once more:

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."


Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

every point you make is a lie.

and additionally, as i mentioned before, and you may be aware of, there was a bit of a problem with the infrastructure due to some problems across the street from wtc 7 on sept 11. this led to trouble with water pressure and sprinklers.

"The investigators also reported that if the city water main had not been cut by the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 (WTC 1 and WTC 2), operating sprinklers in WTC 7 would likely have prevented its collapse."

presumably your stupid examples did not have two 110 story building collapsing across the street. yunno that can cause a minor problem sometimes. but presumably you believe the sprinklers were disabled by gremlins or draculas.

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08

-I am not getting into the who or why without having concluded what happened first. Otherwise, it's pointless.

-I grant the offical version regarding WTC 1&2 collapsing. Stick to the point. We are discussing high rise buildings and the reason the collapse or do not. The reason we are going over this is to prove that OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT EXPLANATIONS should not be simply accepted without some fact checking.

-Damaged high rises do not implode. They topple. Look into it, man. Stop reading government endorsed websites. Open your mind.

Why is it you are comfortable question the IPCC but 9/11 Commission is beyond reproach? I know I should fact check this for you picky bastards but I don't have the time right now and will go off memory. If Building 7 was included in the 9/11 Commission report then I concede, completely.

If it was omitted, then why?

the link:

9-11 Research: Other Building Collapses

look, this is getting ridiculous...I can find just as many links as you can. Do a little critical thinking on your own.

how many times have i told you what happened?

thousands of pages and avalanches of evidence are available. dont blame me if you would rather lie.

didnt you just say you are ok with the explanations for wtc 1 and 2? they were dmaged and they imploded. so i guess you can throw that stupid point out.

because oddly enough, on earth, some things are true and others are not. thats weird right? one would think that either everything on earth is true or everything is false.

again, you are contradicting yourself. is your claim now that 1 and two were also demolished? if that is not your claim then you have some pretty great examples of buildings collspsing into themselves. is your claim in fact that all 3 were demolished, like your link is claiming?

Originally posted by martin:

I already told you I willingly concede Towers 1 and 2, with the airliners, for arguments sake. I'm not about to got through every aspect of event. It's too time consuming.

martin:

I agree, some things are true and some are not. That is why you have to see if they agree with the laws of physics or economics or whatever.

then you are conceding that damage and fire can make a building implode and i win the argument.

implosion of a high rise like 7 is not unprecedented like you claim if it happened twice across the street the same day.

Look at these facts: