[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what your problem is with Build. 7 collapsing. Do you not think that damage done by debris and a fire that was burning all day was enough to bring it down? The author of that article refers a lot to eyewitness testimony. Anything that supports his calims is the truth and anything that doesn't, he dismisses with someone else's account. I.E the extent of damge to the strucure and the size of the fire inside. Was it one floor, ten floors etc. A timeline of the eyewitnesse accounts could help shed some light on the discrepencies.
As for the steel beam samples, like in real estate, its location, location, location. Where were the samples taken from? You can have extensive, catastophic damage in one area but not another.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem is not that fire cannot take a building down, but by the strict engineering standards for high-rise buildings it should take much longer for fire (even when huge) to cause critical damage to the core construction. Do you know of other examples where fire brought down a steel-frame constructed, modern highrise building?

But let's accept fire caused it to collapse. How would the damage cause the perfect collapse? That is my concern. I can see parts of the building losing support, collapsing, extending damage to oher parts of the construction and collapsing gradually in a chain of events. But not symmetrically, superfast and on its own footprint. That would be highly unlikely, wouldnt it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you expect it to tip over like a tree? If the main load bearing structures have failed, where is the mass of the building going to go?