Beijing CCTV Annex Fire - Mandarin Oriental Hotel

You rested your case without much thought.

It's made of concrete, silly. Even nearly all of the largest high rises in the world are now made of reinforced concrete.

7 was a very unusual building in that it was built around another structure. It was a built over a Con Edison power station, which required some unusual structural designs to support the tremendous loads above it. The initial point of failure was at these points of unusual design, and it was expansion of columns due to heat in the area of the unusual design where the initial structural failures began. BTW, much smaller steel structures under much smaller loads have failed due to fire alone.

All collapsing buildings make a lot of dust, even though only the supports are taken out, and the weight of the building is used to demolish itself. There's a company in France that has done dozens of demolitions by taking out only one floor, and letting the building do exactly what towers 1 and 2 did. The technique is called: "verinage", and it makes a lot of dust, just as any building collapse would. Put it in the youtube search bar. I'm surprised there's any truthers left.

Ok - this is a very cool example. However, there's a specific reason why they collapse the buildings from the middle in this case, this is due to conservation of energy. There is enough energy in the top half of the building to demolish the bottom half. If they only took out the top floor, or even a few floors from the top it would not be enough to demolish the whole building. These buildings will not demolish at freefall speeds. Also they used hydraulics to take out the floors (not fire).

I also wonder why the fires were not even hot enough to break windows (a mere 1300ºF). Plus NIST says "No significant factor" to Popular Mechanics.

The 24,000 gallons of diesel were there to power the electricity generators of the NYC Office of Emergency Management which resided in WTC7.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the second paragraph.

I'm saying this. How can anyone look at this video, and look at 9/11 videos of WTC7 collapsing and tell me honestly that WTC7 collapsed because it had a more severe fire than this building!

Point well taken, but how can anyone figure out a building collapse just by looking at a video? Your point is plausible on a surface level, but I don't have an engineering background and I doubt that you do either. Is either of us really able to understand and compare the structural properties of WTC7 and the CCTV annex? Who knows how much redundancy they built into the CCTV building for just such an eventuality?

I do have an engineering background. I have been an engineer for 7 years, but I'm not a civil engineer.
I disagree that visual evidence is not evidence. It is. Since we have no other documented cases of fire collapses like WTC7 in history we have to assume that it is a controlled demolition. The burden of proof is now for the WTC7 "fire theorist" to show us, how WTC buildings were different than any other building in history. The 911 commission did not do this, especially not with WTC7.

K let's see that. I'm up for it.