I'll reply here, but if you wish to discuss these issues further I ask that you do so in new threads. You will do well to use the forum search feature before making claims that have been discussed here
ad nauseum.
That's wrong, a skyscraper *will* topple over unless the damage caused is at the center.
First, you do not address the fact that, as I noted above, the worst damage to WTC 7 was caused by the fire, which was in the interior of the building.
Next, there are several ways that you could have supported your opinion.
1. You could present an example of a similarly-constructed building toppling for any reason.
2. You could cite engineering texts that support your claim.
3. You could do your own analysis of the structure, damage, and fires.
You have done none of these things.
If you only blow out one side with explosives in controlled demolition, the building will fall to the side, without a lateral force being applied.
Again, please provide examples of this happening to similar structures, cite structural experts who agree with you, provide evidence that WTC 7 was "blown out on one side," etc.
Hence I would expect a building that was severely damaged on one side to topple over, rather than to fall pretty much straight down like the video hints at.
The cases of the twin towers should be instructive to you. The collapses of both initiated on one side of the building: the east side of the south tower and the south side of the north tower (sides with 60-foot floor trusses, btw). In each case, the tops of the towers tilted significantly to those sides. However, you'll note that the tilting did not continue until "toppling" occurred. Instead, once the tilt had reached a few degrees, the bending columns, which were not designed for such off-axis loads, buckled, and the collapse progressed straight down. These are basic engineering concepts. See also
Why didn't the upper part pivot about it's base? Bazant & Zhou (2001) Appendix II
Which brings you back to the whole "Could fire destroy these buildings" questions. NIST ran tests with models and couldn't reproduce it.
If you believe that the NIST floor truss fire tests were done to reproduce conditions in the towers, you are mistaken and clearly haven't read the reports. From NIST NCSTAR 1-6B:
When you read that report, take note of which truss failed the test. You should also read NCSTAR 1-5B.
Only in computer simulations, where they weakened the 600% redundant central core
I have no idea where you got this information, which has no bearing on reality.
so much the building would have fallen over in the first steep wind, they could reproduce a collapse by fire.
Ditto.
The thing is: Yes, temperature will weaken steel. But will the temperature of the fires be enough to weaken it below 1/6th of the original strength? I have not seen any evidence anywhere whatsoever that points at this is what happened.
If you have specific disagreements with specific findings of the investigations, state them and be prepared to back your claims with facts. For example, if you want to pursue your claim that WTC 7 should have toppled over, you'll need to show that either:
1. The collapse did not initiate in the area circled in red below, or
2. If you agree that the collapse did initiate in that area, as NIST's working hypothesis states, why a major failure there would cause the building to topple. Be sure to include the collapse of the east mechanical penthouse in your analysis.
P.S: Got some links on WTC6 burning?
See also FEMA 403, chapter 4, and videos shot by Steve Spak.
Again, if you wish to continue this discussion, please do so in a new thread, and search the forum and links in my signature to be sure your questions haven't been answered a thousand times.
Here is a full text of the Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl study in case it is not included in the press release about the study on your site as well:
