yes there were a lot of other buildings much much closer to the Towers that fell that sustained more damage but somehow managed to stay upright...
considerin' the strenght of t7 it is unprobable to say the least it came down 'cause of vibrations [damage wasn't any where near enough]; this would te the first case in history.
This is what you want to believe. Just admit it. Come clean. However, if you truly have an open mind but confused by the noise of anti-American propaganda, I will spend the time discussing the laws of physics and engineering and spell it all out to you. Bsmeter will say the laws of physics and engineering is a Jewish conspiracy. May as well talk to my pet Dog about 9/11. I think you are better than that.
i wanna a past example of a buildin' of that size and strenght collapsin' on its own weight just like b7 did when it felt compassion for the towers. will get back to u tomorrow, its 4.14am here. by the way this aint anti american, is definetly pro-usa, seekin' for the truth, but sure is anti government.
I still don't see anyone in the 10 threads so far on the topic of WTC7 who actually believes the government's version of the story give me a good explanation as to why WTC7 collapsed.... All they can do is call people names and say if you think there is another side to this story you are a moron and hate America...... amazing. WAKE UP please.... WHERE IN THE F*ck DO YOU SEE IN THIS PICTURE FIRES HOT ENOUGH TO COLLAPSE THIS BUILDING ??? Simple logic.... If the towers fell because jet fuel was supposedly able to cause the fires in the building to burn hot enough to melt steel ..... and there was no jet fuel in WTC7.... what caused the same steel to suddenly lower it's melting point and collapse?? Please let me know.. thanks