New Evidence that World Trade Center was Not a Surprise – More lies?

submitted by salvia_d from armstrongeconomics.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There was no source of fuel and the photos of the collapse fail to show a raging fire.

Watch that video from the backside. There was a huge 100+ foot deep by 20+ feet wide 'slash' into the core of the building that went from the top almost to the ground floor. And there was a raging fire inside.

[–]Preachy_Jerk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Aside from what such extensive damage to a building a hundred yards away says about the intensity of whatever happened to the Twin Towers, have you even read the official story FAQ? The one that says that WTC7 did not collapse due to damage from debris, and the fire wasn't particularly remarkable?

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think I've read that. But when that video was taken, the subsequent fire after the damage was too small and 'localized' to collapse the building. Even if it had spread throughout the entire building after the video, fire damage doesn't cause such an even collapse.