Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
How's this? It's even in a youtube video, so it must be true!
Building 7 Explained - YouTube
And there are plenty more.
My point being that, for those of us who are laymen, there is no clear and obvious evidence that the collapse was not due to fires. More, if the science is so totally clear and obvious, doesn't that inherently mean that all the scientists and engineers who agree with the government's report are in on the conspiracy? And doesn't that include any who independently accept it, not just those who may have been contracted to do the investigation?
There is a lot of bandying about of the word 'fact' in these threads, but I'm pretty sure most of the time it is really 'opinion'.
If the video is true why didn't at least one of THESE collapse? Why has no other steel-framed highrise in HISTORY collapsed from fire?
If I understand the guy's conclusion correctly, he claims no other building of this type has ever burned uncontrolled for 7 hours. I can only assume the buildings in your picture are either things he doesn't know about, or the fires were contained in some way, etc.
I'm not saying the guy in the video is right, merely making a point about the use of the word fact and the silliness of looking at youtube videos as paragons of accuracy.