1989 article NY Times, WTC7 was structurally reinforced so floors could be removed.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=2

I will let you guys read the article.

It could also be argued that this was a cause of structural failure. IE key load bearing members removed due to underengineering that resulted in collapse...

They built the structure so well that it free fell from a small fire and structural damage. There were too many reinfocements holding it together than when one part feel it took everything with it which is why it all collapsed in one piece. Kind of like when you elaboretly line up dominos and then one idiot slips up and they all come tumbling down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius

They built the structure so well that it free fell from a small fire and structural damage. There were too many reinfocements holding it together than when one part feel it took everything with it which is why it all collapsed in one piece. Kind of like when you elaboretly line up dominos and then one idiot slips up and they all come tumbling down.

---

It doesn't work that way.... I am assuming you were being sarcastic with your comment?

hsugh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aceace

It doesn't work that way.... I am assuming you were being sarcastic with your comment?

---

yeah I was