Your Daily Mail article is one of the silliest articles on 9/11 issues I've seen. The first photo is the photoshopped photo that's been used for years. Look at the straight line of smoke on the corner of the building. This is a dead give-away. Nor were there fires on more that about 5-6 lower floors, not all the way up the south side. The actual NIST report on Bldg 7, said damage to Bldg 7 caused by the collapsing North Tower was minimal and did not play a role in its collapse.L4t3rD4yS41nT wrote:"Can you please help me out on one thing? Explain Building 7 falling down. I realize with your expertise it should be an easy task."
This link might help answer that question:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -fire.html
Bldg 7 and surrounding buildings were not left unscathed or immune to the overall destruction of those two buildings.
When steel is heated, it is weakened and can no longer carry the loads that it was designed to carry. When that occurs the structure will fail. With a normal office fire and in normal conditions, fires should be easily extinguished and there would not be a structural failure. Given that day though 9/11/01 with all of the chaos and efforts put in to the twin towers there was not a fire fighting force large enough to handle all of the fires in the area. Just some thoughts. I've also heard of reports/accounts of parts of the building(s) that collapsed hit bldg. 7.
The author says:
Sorry, but the 9/11 Commission Report did not cover Building 7. I've found no mention of Building 7 in a search of the actual 9/11 Commission ReportThough the entirety of the collapse is not shown in the video, it does show how there is legitimacy to the explanation provided by the government's 9/11 Commission investigation.
The author goes on to say:
Doing a search of the report for 'total progressive collapse" gave zero results, as did a search just on the word 'progressive'.Government analysts part of the 9/11 Commission said that all three of the buildings that fell in New York that day were due to 'total progressive collapse,' which means that when a building has extreme damage in one area, the entire structure of the building is weakened as a result.
That's just for starters. I'll comment on the rest of your assertions later if so inclined.