Questions for official story nuts.

[lovepg]

So if the fires weakened the towers and building seven to the point of collapse into there own footprint, how much did the plane hitting the building have to do with the building falling? if structural damage to the Towers from the plane contributed to its collapse?
Wouldn't the uneven nature of the damage to parts of the tower from the plane while other parts were left structurally untouched by it make the collapse into its own footprint that much more unlikely??? Considering it takes much planning and skill and explosives to get an undamaged building to fall into its footprint like all three did on 9/ 11.
If the planes did not cause sufficent damage to contribute to the towers falling why have fires failed to bring down steel skyscrapers before???

[SDuderstadt]

1. False premise...

take a look at just about any video of WTC 1&2 collapsing and try to make the case they are falling into their own footprint.



I honestly think "truthers" believe any building that didn't fall over on its side, "collapsed into its own footprint".

[lovepg]

3. Amazing no answer to my question....

I asked how much structural damage according to your story was done to the Towers by the planes.
If YOU can say for sure HOW it happened the TOWERS fell this little piece is very BASIC don't you think?????
If you cannot answer this your premise on the compromised steel giving way because of fire and STRUCTURAL DAMAGE
is fantasy. A nice conjecture nothing more.
So cite away official story nuts.

[SDuderstadt]

4. I'm invoking "Lared's Rule"...

You'll find an explanation of it elsewhere. Bye.

[LARED]

2. I'm pretty sure these are the "Offical Story" Nuts

I don't think they take questions.