Now we're not talking about the Windsor building???<quoted text>
Do you know what the word "primarily" by fire means? That was the main reason, if none of the towers burned, even with structural damage, none likely would have fallen.The fires clearly initiated all three collapses since they did not fall on impact.
And on WTC7, if there was no DEBRIS from WTC1 it would not have fell, for the Racist Diddling impaired I shall repeat a line below.
"BUT THIS STRUCTURAL DAMAGE DID NOT INITIATE THE COLLAPSE. THE FIRES INITIATED BY THE DEBRIS, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse"
THE NIST RACIST DIDDLER!
21. Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?
The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7SEVERING SEVEN EXTERIOR COLUMNSBUT THIS STRUCTURAL DAMAGE DID NOT INITIATE THE COLLAPSE. THE FIRES INITIATED BY THE DEBRIS, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. THE DEBRIS IMPACT DAMAGE DID PLAY A SECONDARY ROLE IN THE LAST STAGES OF THE COLLAPSE SEQUENCE, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.
But thanks for bringing it up so I could bebunk your ass... I enjoyed that.