http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html
I know just posting a link is a bit rude, but this article explains what happened with WTC7.
You realize yall are arguing about the misspelling of a word and that it equals we are all the same. Talk about an "lol-cow"...
In response to this quote, the top pic of that was right after the fall. The other pics are standard pics of small fires right after the towers were struck. Ignoring the fact of "how" those fires got there since building 6 took a HUGE amount of damage and brunt from the strikes and fall (though never fell, however the building was used as no significance like building 7). A standard fire burning off the known materials in 7 would barely push a temp above a 1000. Not to mention density (of the flame itself not coverage which was also not sufficient) of the fire itself, was not sufficient to destroy the heat treating much less have much of an effect at all on the steel skeleton. Then when you add beam length, density, and distribution, it would have MAYBE a 2 percent effect. We have some serious issues with this "explanation".
The average person has no idea the design of such structures or knowledge of the materials, so this explanations are easy to pass by the mainstream. Some of the 600 permits these buildings had to pass was fire control, prevention, structure rigidity in such an even ect ect. People have no idea how much design these building where through, they were built for massive fire, hell even tower 1 and 2 was built to be struck by an air plane. They were built not to fall simple as that, especially not free fall.
Let's also ignore the fact some rookies that barely could handle a Cessna could pull a maneuver, at low altitude , supposedly holding at 500+, that some of the best trained pilots in the planet said "um no, I couldn't do that, those planes wouldn't take that . People don't realize how small the towers target really was when you add all the other factors. Yet both strike just perfectly dead center (side to side not up and down). I digress as I literally get way too carried away with this. There is just TOO much that doesn't work.
Just these last things....
This is what attempted free fall of a steel structure looks like in reality when the framing is in tact.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> Want more examples just look up failed demolitions, there are 50 I an think of just off the top of my head.
Just remember not just a few or not just one...none...as in no steel structure building has ever fell from a fire. Then poof like literal magic, 3 in one day.
Wanna guess how long this burned and didn't fall??
Or maybe this one??
One more just for fun!!!
I could keep going....as I am saying, falling is the absolute LAST thing these buildings are built to do. Much less a FREE fall, not to mention, with the distribution of mass that is used in building them in the first place, they are not allowed to free fall straight down if a miracle happened.
If I can find one video, there was a tower that the demo failed and it toppled over then started to roll lol. The official story takes advantage of people not understanding things and that really pisses me off.
I respect peoples opinions of things and if you want to believe something then I truly will support that. I am just letting you know, if you believe the official story, you are wrong. I don't need opinions to prove such a thing, though if you want to believe I understand why and I still love you